Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRITS

Sir Peter Emery: Mr. Speaker, I have given you notice that I am desired today to move for the issue on 3 January of your Warrants in respect of Writs for by-elections in 15 constituencies in Northern Ireland—that is to say, all the constituencies in Northern Ireland except Belfast, West, and Foyle—in place of the 15 Northern Ireland Members of Parliament who have accepted today a disqualifying office—we used to call it "an office of profit under the crown".
In order to save the time of the House may I ask that these motions be taken together and that their text be published in the Votes and Proceedings and in the Official Report?

Mr. Speaker: Does that course have the agreement of the House?

Hon. Members: Aye.
Ordered,
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of East Antrim, in the room of Roy Beggs, Esquire, who since his election for the said County Constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham, in the County of Buckingham.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of East Londonderry, in the room of William Ross, Esquire, who since his election for the said County Constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham, in the County of Buckingham.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone in the room of Kenneth Maginnis, Esquire, who since his election for the said County Constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the County of York.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Lagan Valley, in the room of the Right honourable James Henry Molyneaux, who since his election for the said County Constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham, in the County of Buckingham.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Mid-Ulster, in the room of the Reverend Robert Thomas William McCrea, who since his election for the said County Constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham, in the County of Buckingham.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Newry and Armagh, in the room of James Nicholson, Esquire, who since his election for the said County Constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham, in the County of Buckingham.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of North Antrim, in the room of the Reverend Ian Richard Kyle Paisley, who since his election for the said County Constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the County of York.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of North Down, in the room of James Alexander Kilfedder, Esquire who since his election for the said County Constituency bath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham, in the County of Buckingham.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Strangford, in the room of the right honourable John David Taylor, who since his election for the said County Constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham, in the County of Buckingham.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of South Antrim, in the room of Clifford Forsythe, Esquire, who since his election for the said County Constituency bath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the County of York.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of South Down, in the room of the Right honourable John Enoch Powell, M.B.E., who since his election for the said County Constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the County of York.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Upper Bann, in the room of James Harold McCusker, Esquire, who since his election for the said County Constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham, in the County of Buckingham.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough Constituency of Belfast East, in the room of Peter David Robinson, Esquire, who since his election for the said Borough Constituency bath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the County of York.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough Constituency of Belfast North, in the room of Alfred Cecil Walker, Esquire, who since his election for the said Borough Constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the County of York.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough Constituency of Belfast South, in the room of the Reverend William Martin Smyth, who since his election for the said Borough Constituency bath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the County of York.—[Sir Peter Emery.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Teachers' Pay Dispute

Mr. Yeo: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the teachers' pay dispute.

Mr. Hancock: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the teachers' pay dispute.

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the teachers' pay dispute.

Mr. Alan Howarth: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the outstanding issues in the teachers' dispute.

Mr. Randall: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the teachers' pay dispute.

Mr. Merchant: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the teachers' pay dispute.

Mr. Pawsey: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the current position in the teachers' dispute.

Mr. Spencer: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the latest position in the teachers' dispute.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): The teachers' panel of the Burnham committee met on 5 December and resolved to seek an early resumption of negotiations. The management panel met on 11 December and agreed to undertake further informal discussions with the teachers' side. Discussions are taking place today.
I welcome any development which may help to achieve a settlement of this bitter, damaging and unnecessary dispute. But it remains the Government's view that an honourable, worthwhile and lasting settlement will come only from a bargain which clarifies teachers' duties and reforms their career structure as well as improving pay levels. The teachers' unions have so far refused to try to negotiate a deal of that kind.

Mr. Yeo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hundreds of thousands of families are desperately worried by the serious and permanent damage that is being inflicted on their children by the dispute? Is he further aware that while many of them recognise that the intransigence of the NUT has brought about the situation, they look to the Government in general and to my right hon. Friend in particular to take a lead in bringing about an early solution to the problem?

Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, and some of the teachers' unions could end the disruption today. The Government have taken an initiative in the conditional offer that they have made.

Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are two unyielding obstacles—the determination of

the teachers to prolong the dispute and the non-availability of resources to make an increased pay settlement in 1985? Will he equip himself with the powers necessary to pursue the objectives which he rightly has, and bring an end to this damaging dispute?

Sir Keith Joseph: If the Government sought to equip themselves with powers, I doubt whether that would immediately end the disruption.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Alan Howarth.

Mr. Hancock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My question is No. 2 on the Order Paper and I was informed that my question would be taken with question No. 1.

Mr. Speaker: The mistake is entirely mine. Mr. Hancock.

Mr. Hancock: Will the Secretary of State say whether responsibility for settling the teachers' dispute has been taken out of his hands by the Prime Minister? Will he inform the House what proposals she has laid before him for any solution to the dispute and of any initiative coming from her?

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. The Government have no new initiatives to put before the House.

Mr. Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's desire that, as resources become available, teachers' salaries should more adequately reflect the great importance of their responsibilities and their high professional standards, but that one of the conditions for teachers enjoying such a high professional standing is that they should forswear the disruption of their pupils' education?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. To ensure the recruitment and retention of the right quality of persons as teachers and effective teaching, the Government see it as necessary to provide an adequate pay and career structure.

Mr. Merchant: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious anxiety now being displayed by parents at the effective abandonment of children during lunchtime in many areas by the teachers' unions' withdrawal of supervision? Is he aware of the problems in Newcastle where, in some areas, children have been threatened with sexual abuse and assaulted during lunchtime because there is no supervision? What steps is he taking to ensure that local authorities use their maximum powers to ensure that alternative arrangements are made at lunchtime to provide supervision for those children?

Sir Keith Joseph: The House will be aware that the Government have introduced a Bill to enable local education authorities to make alternative and effective arrangements for midday supervision.

Mr. Spencer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the National Union of Teachers has taken special selective action in the constituencies of some Members to whose views it has taken exception? Does he agree that that is an especially nasty and vindictive form of attack on innocent children?

Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. It is only a fraction worse than the general indifference to children's welfare shown by some teacher unions.

Mr. Flannery: The Minister says that the unions could end the dispute overnight. Why does he not say that the reality is that the Government could end the dispute overnight? Despite his gerrymandering of the Burnham committee, the teachers' unity will continue for a long time after Christmas because of the Government's intransigence in failing to pay teachers a professional wage and refusing to give them the status that they should have, which would be the way to get children back to school. He knows that as well as the House does.

Sir Keith Joseph: Why does the hon. Gentleman persist in ignoring the fact that after a mere 20 minutes the National Union of Teachers and other teachers' unions rejected the Government's initiative when they offered substantial increases, conditionally, of pay for good teachers?

Mr. Sean Hughes: Did the Secretary of State mean what he said when he told the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) that the Government have no intention of taking any initiative to bring this dispute to a halt?

Sir Keith Joseph: The Government have taken an initiative which the teachers' unions could request the employers to pick up again tomorrow if they wished.

Mr. Barnett: Is the Secretary of State aware that the NUT's demands, which if responded to by him would settle the dispute, are entirely reasonable? It has asked for the cost of living during the current financial year to be taken into account, for the relativities between teachers and other professions to be restored, that there should be an element in the settlement to take account of the fact that teachers have fallen far behind others, and that he should give a commitment that there will be an attempt in future years to restore teachers' salaries to the level of Houghton? Is that not reasonable?

Sir Keith Joseph: No, Sir. The NUT walked out of negotiations in December 1984 which might have provided additional finance from taxpayers for the current year.

Mr. Haynes: Why does the Secretary of State have a one-track mind? There are two arguments in this. Why does he not stop interfering, and let the unions negotiate and settle the matter? They will win in the end.

Sir Keith Joseph: It would be extremely satisfatory if some Opposition Members spoke up for the children.

Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I recently saw a deputation of parents whose children had refused to attend a detention imposed on them for misbehaving during the teachers' strike? Is that not understandable, but sad, silly and tragic? Has not the time come for teachers to stop damaging children's education and to go back to work, and for a proper inquiry, not just into pay, but into pay and conditions, to be held?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. I am not convinced that an inquiry, however broad, would automatically bring this disruption immediately to an end.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that of the many teachers whom I have met and who are now in dispute, every one regrets having to take what he or she regards as necessary action to protect his or her profession and rights? Is he further aware that the teachers deeply resent the sort of allegation that he has seen fit to make again today, that they do not look after the welfare of the children, about whom they care deeply, but that that does not present them from trying to ensure that their profession has a decent life and continues to attract the first-class people whom the Minister would wish it to attract?

Sir Keith Joseph: The teachers are men and women given by God free will, and it is their decision to disrupt children's education. There is no question of having to do that.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that while nothing can excuse the victimisation of children that is taking place on such a wide scale, and while only the teachers can give a status to their profession, there is real merit in my right hon. Friend considering during the recess the suggestion made by his predecessor, our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle), who suggested the establishment of a review body to consider the whole issue, on condition that further action was immediately called off?

Sir Keith Joseph: The behaviour of teachers is not such as to recommend the Government to consider a review body. Moreover, it is perfectly possible for the employers and teachers to agree on pay that rewards good teachers, recruits and retains people of the right quality, and which is affordable.

Mr. Freud: Does the Secretary of State genuinely believe that he is doing enough to settle the teachers' dispute?

Sir Keith Joseph: If the hon. Gentleman has suggestions that would be affordable, would achieve the Government's purposes, and would end the disruption, I would gladly listen to them or read them. Of the options available to the Government, I believe that the right one is to persuade the teachers to do their duty by the children and to finish the disruption now.

Mr. Powley: Would my right hon. Friend care to reflect on the attitude of the general secretary of the NUT when in a 20-minute address to the Back-Bench education committee he never once mentioned the effect of the dispute on the children, whom we should consider primarily, nor its financial effect? Many of us see other areas for expenditure in the education service, such as on improvement in the capitation allowance, and in buildings, and on welfare in schools.

Sir Keith Joseph: I would not be surprised if that were true, and I am sure that the gentleman concerned remains self-righteous despite it.

Mr. Radice: With the dispute now in its 11th month, is it not about time that the Secretary of State took a fresh initiative? He has not moved since the beginning of August to try to end the disruption in our schools. Why does he not establish an independent fast-acting inquiry on teachers' pay, which many of us have been urging on him for many months?

Sir Keith Joseph: The employers also asked for an inquiry and the Government considered such ideas, but


there is no reason to expect that an inquiry would automatically end the current disruption. I hope that the hon. Gentleman tries to bring the same persuasive power to bear on the teachers as he does on the Government.

CERN

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has yet decided on the level of future British contributions to the CERN project.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. George Walden): My right hon. Friend has not yet reached a decision in this matter.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Is my hon. Friend aware that the CERN project is a rare example of a successful European collaborative venture that which will help to keep Europe in the forefront of world science? Does he agree that if we alone reduce our contribution we shall send all the wrong signals to the many other European countries involved, as well as damaging the project itself?

Mr. Walden: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question and one of the first things that I did was to go to visit CERN for myself. It is a centre of excellence. It is no part of our intention to damage it, but we have taken serious note of Professor Kendrew's recommendations, and in his view it will be possible to save 25 per cent. of the expenses. I reaffirmed in my contacts with member states that the Government continue to place the highest priority on European collaboration.

Mr. Dalyell: Why did the hon. Gentleman say last night that it would be wrong to make a hasty judgment?

Mr. Walden: Because that is self-evidently the truth. Professor Kendrew reported in June. I am undertaking a round of consultations and so far I have talked to nine of the 13 Ministers of member states. That is not evidence of hasty judgments.

Mr. Freud: Are there not grave implications for international co-operative ventures such as might come with SDI? Would it not be more sensible to invest money than to withdraw from something as valuable as CERN?

Mr. Walden: Not for the first time, I fail to see the connection between two propositions that the hon. Gentleman has put.

Dr. Bray: Is the Minister's proposal for a joint independent review of CERN similar to that of the Kendrew committee, or is he considering a wider international review of particle physics research, in which the United States and the Soviet Union might participate? Does not the latter course open up wider possibilities of international co-operation?

Mr. Walden: For the moment, our objective is to secure a radical review of the CERN operations, but against a mental background of the kind recommended by the hon. Gentleman. I noted carefully the thoughtful comments that he made on this subject in last night's debate.

Teachers' Pay Dispute

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will institute an inquiry into the arrangements for the remuneration of teachers and their conditions of service.

Sir Keith Joseph: On 11 December the management panel restated its view that a Royal Commission or some other kind of inquiry should be established to look into teachers' pay, structure, conditions of service and negotiating machinery. Naturally I will give careful consideration to that request, but I have to say that it is difficult to see how such action would produce an early resolution of the present dispute in view of the union's insistence on a settlement for 1985 without conditions, at a level which the employers cannot afford.

Mr. Chapman: While I hope that good sense will prevail, particularly on the part of the NUT leadership and the dispute will be brought to an end, I should like my right hon. Friend to be a little more forthcoming. Is there any good reason why he should not set up a short inquiry now, irrespective of whether the negotiations are successful, and in linking conditions of service and pay have such an inquiry, whether or not with the co-operation of the NUT?

Sir Keith Joseph: It is not self-evident that such an inquiry would bring to an end the present disruption. Discussions are taking place this afternoon between the employers and the teachers' representatives. I do not want to pin too much hope on what might emerge from the discussions this afternoon, but I repeat that an inquiry would not necessarily end the disruption.

Mr. Spearing: The Secretary of State said earlier that this was a bitter and damaging dispute, and he referred to initiatives. Does he agree that it was his initial initiative and the requirement to link appraisal and pay that has caused the length and bitterness of this dispute? Is not the Secretary of State's initiative responsible, therefore, for a high proportion of the bitterness and damage to which he referred?

Sir Keith Joseph: No, indeed not. I do not for a moment believe that my modest suggestion, which is agreed in principle by so many teachers as well as by so many members of the public, has any part to play in this dispute.

Mr. Alexander: I accept the constraints under which the employers must operate in this dispute, but is it not a fact that there is a great shortage of mathematics and science teachers? Is not this shortage likely to continue until arrangements can be made to make salaries attractive to graduates in those disciplines?

Sir Keith Joseph: Most certainly yes. One of the advantages of the offer that the employers made on 12 September, with the help of conditional additional money from the taxpayers, was precisely that it would have enabled employers to offer relatively attractive salaries to teachers who are in short supply.

Mr. Freeson: Whenever it is suggested that an independent inquiry of some kind should be set up—a suggestion that comes from both sides of the House and from outside—why does the Secretary of State keep on repeating, parrot fashion, the phrase, "It is not self-evident that such an inquiry would end the present disruption"?


Nobody is suggesting that it would, but just because it is not self-evident to the Secretary of State, must everybody else therefore be ignored? Why will he not shift just a little bit to meet the views of many people, of all persuasions, and make some kind of movement to resolve the present dispute?

Sir Keith Joseph: It is an indication of the irrationality of some of the unions involved in the dispute that makes the right hon. Gentleman accept the possibility that even an inquiry would not bring to an end the destructive damage that is being caused by the dispute to the education of children. It is often in the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House that, if introduced, an inquiry would end the disruption. I believe that it is right to say that that is not self-evident.

Mr. Madel: Is it not time, after 11 months of dispute, that the teacher trade unions made use of the good offices of ACAS to try to resolve the dispute? Even though the full-scale intervention of ACAS would not necessarily end the dispute, it should lead, first, to a lowering of the temperature and, secondly, to an end to the industrial trouble while ACAS does its best to solve the problem. Why do the trade unions not go to ACAS and be seen to be trying to solve the problem?

Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend makes very sensible suggestions, but they are, alas, for the trade unions and the teachers concerned, not for the Government.

Mr. Radice: Many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and people outside, will be deeply depressed by what the Secretary of State has said this afternoon. Why does he not put an end to the Government's muddle, indecision and inactivity over the teachers' dispute and announce that he has decided upon and agreed to set up an independent inquiry?

Sir Keith Joseph: For the umpteenth time—because I do not believe that it would fulfil the hopes of many hon. Members, and of many outside the House, who imagine that the teacher unions would then behave reasonably.

Student Grant

Mr. Alton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to restore the student grant, in real terms, to its 1979–80 value.

Mr. Walden: No, Sir.

Mr. Alton: Will the Under-Secretary admit that yesterday's decision to increase student grants this year by only 2 per cent. will mean that by next year students will have sustained a cut in real terms of 20 per cent. since 1979, and that yesterday's decision to reduce students' housing benefit, unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit during short vacations will mean that in real terms £14 million will be cut from students' allowances during the next year, making a net saving to the Government of £20 million? Does he not accept that he is surreptitiously introducing by the back door the provisions of his Green Paper, against the wishes of his own Back Benchers?

Mr. Walden: I accept—because it is incontrovertible —that over the years there has been a cut in the grant to students, but the hon. Gentleman must accept that the number of students in this country is at an all-time high.

Secondly, he must accept that students in this country benefit from the most generous system of support in the Western world. Thirdly, he must accept that the cost of that support must be shared among students, parents and the taxpayer.
As for benefits, I understand that a written answer on this question is down for reply tomorrow by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Forth: Is my hon. Friend aware that our student grant system is the envy of many students throughout the world, who are expected to make a much greater contribution towards their education? Will he undertake again to review the possibility of introducing a loan system, which works perfectly satisfactorily in many other civilised, developed countries?

Mr. Walden: Let me elaborate on the cost of student grants in this country. The United Kingdom devotes a greater proportion of GNP to student support than do our major competitors. For example, it is twice as much as West Germany, two and a half times as much as the United States, and about seven times as much as France and Italy.
I assure my hon. Friend and the House that full consideration was given to all the implications of introducing a loan system, but it was felt that for a number of reasons it would not be right to introduce it at the present time. Two of the reasons were high initial costs and the effect on low income groups.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can we take it from what the Minister has said that the Government are now determined to reduce the record number of students by giving them inadequate support? Why, after six years in office, cannot the Government at least afford to maintain the level of student grants rather than cutting them by about 3 per cent. next year? Should not the Minister come clean and tell us what will happen to student grants as a result of the removal of the right to claim housing benefit during vacations? Does yesterday's statement that there will be some adjustment mean that the grant will be substantially below the amount that will be lost?

Mr. Walden: The hon. Gentleman must realise that there is no evidence at all to suggest that the fall in the value of the grant has resulted from a decline in the demand for higher education. Therefore, his first question falls heavily to the ground.
He asked why the Government could not afford to do better. If he took the trouble to look back, he would find that, unfortunately, there has been a steady decline in the value of grants ever since 1962. Perhaps this was another example of this country promising too much, too widely.
Although the hon. Gentleman referred to benefits, I am sure that he would not wish me to anticipate the answer that will be given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

World Archaeological Conference

Mr. Stern: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to meet representatives of the Association of University Teachers to discuss the proposed world archaeological conference; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Walden: No, Sir. No approach on this issue has been made to the Department.

Mr. Stern: Is my hon. Friend aware of the circumstances in which a major international congress, which would normally attract academics from all over the world, has been attacked by the Association of University Teachers, which wishes to define the countries from which people should be invited? Is he further aware that that attack had been backed up by the vice-chancellor of Southampton university, Dr. Higginson? In view of this attempt to blackmail academics into submission to the current political shibboleth, will he note that the guidelines issued yesterday by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on freedom of speech in our universities are silent on this form of blackmail? Will he send them back, on the basis that they are totally inadequate?

Mr. Walden: I have, naturally enough, seen references to the ban in the press, but it is entirely a matter for the organisers of the world archaeological conference whether to impose one. I understand that the matter has not been considered by the senate or the council of the university and that no such condition was proposed by the university. My hon. Friend suggests that we send back the guidelines from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, which we received only this morning. I hope that he will give us time to read them first.

Crayford School

Mr. Evennett: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received any representations about the proposed closure of Crayford school.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Chris Patten): No, Sir.

Mr. Evennett: Will my hon Friend consider the proposal to close Crayford school carefully when it arrives on his desk for a decision, and take account of the wishes of parents and the local community? Will he also consider the problems that children will face if they have to travel a long way to another school?

Mr. Patten: I know what an informed interest in due course my hon. Friend has shown in this issue. I assure him that my right hon. Friend will want to take appropriate account of all representations from his constituents.

Schools (Internal Management)

Mr. Neil Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will introduce legislation to restrict the circumstances in which local education authorities may intervene in the internal management of schools; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chris Patten: The Education Bill to be introduced this Session will include proposals to establish a consistent pattern in the distribution of functions between the governing body, the local education authority and the head teacher. The local education authority will not then be able to override the governing body or the head teacher in the discharge of the functions allocated to them.

Mr. Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure he will be gratified to learn that we are on the same wavelength. There is a widespread desire among parents to strike off the shackles of political control and make schools more autonomous. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Bill will cover the circumstances such as

have occurred at Poundswick school in Manchester? What happens in the meantime, until the Bill is passed? What protection is there for parents?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend has filled my cup to overflowing and I very much hope that he is a member of the Committee that considers the Bill. Irrespective of whether we are talking about Poundswick or other matters, what is at issue is not so much the powers held by different interests, as how they are exercised. When responsibilities are split, there is scope for unproductive conflict. That can never be entirely removed.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Secretary of State wrote to me on 9 December about the dispute at Poundswick high school in Manchester. As today-17 December—marks the time limit for a reply from the Manchester education authority to the Department's recent letter, is there anything more that the Minister can say further to the reply that I received on 9 December?

Mr. Patten: We have not yet received a reply from the education authority. I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern and we shall, of course, get in touch with him as soon as possible.

Mr. Lawler: If the Labour and Liberal groups had had their way in Bradford, Mr. Honeyford would have been summarily dismissed a long time ago merely for expressing views with which they happened to disagree. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that, in the forthcoming legislation, opportunities for local authorities to dismiss school staff will be restricted?

Mr. Patten: I suggest that my hon. Friend awaits the Bill. I understand that the difficult and sensitive issue to which he referred has now been settled, but I deplore the way in which some extremists have aggravated a delicate situation in a way that is clearly not in the interests of children.

Youth Training Scheme

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the educational content of the youth training scheme.

Mr. Chris Patten: The new two-year youth training scheme will give all trainees the opportunity to secure a recognised vocational qualification combining training and work experience with relevant education.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister not understand that the Manpower Services Commission, YTS trainees and the Trades Union Congress aspire to a higher educational content in the YTS programme and that that cannot be achieved without additional funding? How can he expect the two-year programme to achieve a better standard of educational content with the same real terms funding as the one-year programme?

Mr. Patten: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I shall send him a copy of the speech that I made to the further education staff college a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. Dorrell: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the object of the YTS is to provide a skilled labour force for industry? It may be important to provide extra funding for adult education, but is it not better to address that issue separately than to try to distract the YTS to provide the funds?

Mr. Patten: I take my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Sheerman: Rather than sending us copies of his speeches, will the Minister take on board the fact that many of the disadvantaged youngsters in our community who are in what are now called premium places—which used to be called mode B schemes — on two-year schemes are in great need of a special sort of education content? Is he aware that they will not receive the education content that they deserve, because of the 15 per cent. limit? Many disadvantaged youngsters will not have a mode B or premium place scheme within the YTS. What will he do about that with his colleagues in the

Mr. Patten: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said. I think that he was straying into some of the territory of my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General. I still think that the hon. Gentleman would find my speech quite interesting.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Minister happy with the increasing infiltration of the MSC into education, which is provoking an artificial split between education and training? Surely it is important to recognise that any training given under a two-year YTS would qualify the trainee for higher education. Does not the split between the Departments impede that development?

Mr. Patten: The more I listen to the hon. Gentleman, the better I think my speech was. I do not accept his premise.

Free Speech

Mr. Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what response he has had from vice-chancellors and principals of institutions of higher education to the concerns that he has expressed over the suppression of free speech.

Mr. Walden: Higher education authorities have affirmed their support for the principle of free speech. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals yesterday published guidelines for the universities on freedom of speech and lawful assembly. My right hon. Friend welcomes this action and will consider whether the content of the guidelines raises questions that he would wish to discuss with the committee.

Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not a fact that the report from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals said, in effect, "Of course we believe in free speech, but"? Did it not then produce a series of excuses for not being able to implement that belief in reality? Will my hon. Friend and the Government consider the prosecution of any student who is involved in incidents such as that which we saw at Manchester university involving my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), the Minister of State, Home Office?

Mr. Walden: The practical problems of ensuring that an individual speaker is given a fair hearing are formidable. The Government are grateful for the advice of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the vice-chancellor of Manchester univerity expressing his view that a refusal to give a hearing to a Minister who had been invited to explain Government policy cannot be defended. He noted that the university's declared intention was to

take firm action in response to the incident at Manchester on 8 November. The university made it clear immediately after the incident that it would consider recommending its council to withhold a proportion of the student union's grant if the latter's full report on the incident and its causes was not satisfactory.

Mr. Conlan: Why does the Minister not inform his hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean), as the Prime Minister is fond of informing others, that prosecutions are for the police and have nothing to do with the Government?

Mr. Walden: The premise on which the hon. Gentleman's question was based is obviously wrong, but his assertion that criminal prosecutions are matters for the police is obviously right.

Parent Governors

Mr. Gerald Howarth: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure that elections of parent governors are fairly conducted; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chris Patten: Under section 2(9) of the Education Act 1980, responsibility for the conduct of elections of parent governors is for the local education authority, except in the case of aided and special agreement schools, where that is for the governors. Any contested election has to be by secret ballot, but otherwise LEAs and governing bodies are free to make what arrangements are appropriate to their particular local circumstances.

Mr. Howarth: Does not my hon. Friend agree that there should be provision to provide for a quorum of parents? Does he not also think it a good idea that notices of the elections for parent governors should be published in the annual report of the school, not only so that parents can be given plenty of warning, but so that they can choose suitable candidates?

Mr. Patten: The greater the clarity, and the longer the warning of the elections, the better.

Teacher Appraisal

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science by what means he intends that teachers should be appraised; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Keith Joseph: I should like to see teacher appraisal conducted at the level of the individual school by the teachers themselves, in accordance with general arrangements introduced and monitored by local education authorities.

Mr. Bruinvels: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to proper teacher appraisal. However, is he aware that Fred Jarvis, the secretary of the National Union of Teachers, and various other high-ranking officials, are deliberately smearing his plan? They are suggesting that the assessment will be done purely on pupils getting better examination results, rather than teachers improving themselves in the school. Is that not a shocking approach?

Sir Keith Joseph: I do not agree with everything that Mr. Jarvis does or says, but I am informed that there is a good deal of unanimity of opinion between Mr. Jarvis and his union and the Government on the matter of appraisal.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Fallon: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Mr. Fallon: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is widespread concern on the Conservative Benches about the moral implications of unprosecuted fraud, hidden evidence, and ill-made money, and that we welcome the rigorous steps proposed by her right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the weekend to clean up those parts of the City which the law does not appear to reach?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the views expressed by my hon. Friend. No one is more anxious than the Government to ensure that those who are guilty of fraud are brought to justice. The Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary have just received Lord Roskill's report. It contains about 112 recommendations. We shall be considering it carefully. It is a weighty document, and we hope to be able to publish it next month.

Ms. Clare: Short asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Ms. Short: Will the Prime Minister admit that she and her Ministers have been seriously misleading the House and the country over the past three months in suggesting that the unemployment rate has been falling and that that development shows some improvement in the real economy when, in fact, the fall is caused by an increase in places on the Government community programme for the long-term unemployed? That programme has increased by just over 24,000 places. The seasonal drop in unemployment is only just under 16,000, so that in the real economy unemployment is still rising. When will the Government start to do something about real jobs in the real economy instead of just fiddling the figures?

The Prime Minister: I thought that the Opposition were in favour of a community programme and of training young people. I shall have to revise my views, because clearly they are not. Yes, there are 230,000 places on the community programme to help the long-term unemployed back into work. Yes, there are 30,000 unfilled places. Yes, we shall continue with the programme because we wish to continue to help the long-term unemployed.

Mr. Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Labour party's policy to renationalise newly privatised industries, with compensation being given only on the basis of the original investment price? Does she agree that that is a disastrous threat to the millions of new shareholders?

The Prime Minister: Wider share ownership is a great principle of the Conservative party. The Labour party will have nothing to do with it.

Mr. Kinnock: In 1984 the Prime Minister promised "to protect the poor and those most in need."
What does she now say to the pensioner couple in their seventies, who will lose £3 a week? What does she now say to the middle-aged couple on a take-home wage of £75 a week, who are to lose £5 a week? What does she say to a 24-year-old single worker taking home £55 a week, who is to lose £12? How does she excuse the malice and immorality of that act of robbery against the people who are already poor?

The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman wants to do is to accept all the increases that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced yesterday, and to forget that there might have to be some losers—[Interruption.] There might have to be some losers—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman wants to forget that there might have to be some losers. However, if he looks at the total expenditure, which is set out in the autumn statement, he will see that this year the total planned expenditure on social security is £40 billion, but by the year 1988–89 it is planned to be £46 billion. That is an increase of £6 billion, which will have to be found out of taxation and contributions by ordinary people.

Mr. Kinnock: Is it not about time that the Prime Minister honestly admitted to the country that more money is spent on benefits for the poor because her policies have made many more people poor? Is it not time for her to say to those whom she glibly dismisses as "some losers" that she could not live on £75 a week and could not tolerate a further loss of £5 a week? How can she defend taking money from people who are already desperately poor, when she knows that her objective is to give more to those who are already very rich?

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday, the point of the proposals is to direct resources to the areas of greatest need. The new family credit will go to 200,000 more families with children than now have the family income supplement. The right hon. Gentleman wants to take the benefits and all the increases, and accept none of the consequences of redistribution. My right hon. Friend wants improved incentives to work, and he wants to ensure that commitments entered into can be afforded. With that in mind, he has put forward his proposals, and they will require an increase in expenditure over planned expenditure this year and expenditure in 1988 of some £6 billion, which will have to be found by the taxpayer. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will think that that is reasonable. If not, how much more would his plan cost?

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister now tell us when it is right to increase the money given to the near destitute in this country? What on earth is the moral or economic justification for finding that money by stealing from the very poor?

The Prime Minister: Once again, the right hon. Gentleman has gone over the top—[Interruption.] I take it that he does not want any of the increases that are to go to families, that he does not want improved incentives to


work and does not want to ensure that commitments entered into can be afforded. He wants to promise the earth and not say how it is to be paid for.

Mr. Hill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although elderly people are interested in pensions and housing benefit, they are mainly concerned about the protection of their environment, law and order on their council estates, and the fear that they cannot safely open their doors in the evening? Will my right hon. Friend continue to reinforce the police and help the chief constables in the regions to have discussions with the communities on neighbourhood watch schemes?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that elderly folk, along with others, are very much concerned with law and order, especially on the council estates. I think he will agree that under this Government old-age pensions have gone up by more than the cost of living, and that under this Government old-age pensioners have had their Christmas bonus every year, which was not the case under the Labour Government.

Mr. Terry Lewis: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lewis: In the dispute between the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Defence, whose side is the right hon. Lady on?

The Prime Minister: I am on the side of a company that is hoping to keep business going for its considerable work force, that has responsibilities to its shareholders and moral responsibilities to its work force, that must deal with its obligations to its bankers and that also has to consider the legal obligations of auditors. In the very sensitive situation that we now have, I suggest that it is left to the company to decide its future.

Dr. Hampson: Will my right hon. Friend go further and take this opportunity to correct the impression that emerged from yesterday's statement on Westland that the Government are backing the Sikorsky deal and confirm that for a long time the Government have sought greater collaboration among European armament manufacturers, which is particularly long overdue with helicopters?

The Prime Minister: Westland is a public limited company. It must take its own decisions. The Government saw that it had a choice. The board has legal obligations to the shareholders, it has moral obligations to the work force, the banks have their obligations and the auditors have their legal obligations. The people on the board are the only ones in a position to know all the facts. They must make their assessment and present that to the company.

Mr. Steel: Reverting to the first question to the Prime Minister this afternoon, since the deputy chairman of the Conservative party is reported to be acting as a character reference for the return of Mr. Postgate to Lloyd's, will she remind him and everybody else that the Government, like her predecessor's, stand against the unacceptable face of capitalism?

The Prime Minister: I have said that the Government have probably done more than any other to try to tackle fraud wherever it occurs. That will continue to be our

policy. As I said, Lord Roskill's report has reached the Government. We are publishing today the White Paper on banking supervision, and the Financial Services Bill will be introduced later this week. We have done, and shall continue to do, everything possible. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman does the City a great disservice by forgetting the number of jobs and the amount of income that it provides for Britain. He is trying to suggest that because some things may be wrong somewhere, that applies to the whole City. That is not correct.

Mr. Robert Atkins: While we are on the subject of aerospace, has my right hon. Friend noticed today that the figures for the British aerospace industry are £1 billion up on this time last year, representing a 23 per cent. increase, and of that some 60 per cent. are exports to the world? Does not she think that that is the jewel in the crown of British manufacturing industry?

The Prime Minister: I congratulate the aerospace industry on its excellent export record and would like to point out that other parts of manufacturing industry have done very well. Indeed, exports by manufacturing industry were a record last year.

Mr. Sean Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Does the fact that the under-25 age group appears to be another group targeted for cuts in welfare benefits mean that the Prime Minister now accepts the view of the vice-chairman of the Tory party that too many young people will not get off their backsides and find work?

The Prime Minister: As I said earlier, no one has done more for youth training than have this Government. The one millionth youth trainee has now entered the scheme. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the Labour party treats these matters with such levity.

Mr. Freeman: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Freeman: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the excellent reception on the Conservative Benches of yesterday's White Paper, especially the proposal for a broader spread of personal pensions? Will she continue to preach the principles of thrift and the broader spread of financial assets?

The Prime Minister: I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes the White Paper. It is meant, among other things, to give wider choice to those who wish to save through a personal pension scheme and build up a capital fund on their own account. It is also directed to help more effectively those in greatest need, such as young families, through the new family credit scheme, and to give improved incentives to work.
It means that the commitment that we enter into can be afforded. That is a matter to which the Opposition have given no attention since the last election. Indeed, since then they have already promised an additional £10 billion without specifying from where that will come.

Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that, during Question Time, once again the tactics of the Labour party were to shout down my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at every opportunity—

[Interruption.]—as they are trying to do to me now. Will you please use your influence to protect this House from the barbaric tactics of the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The noise during Question Time today was rather greater than usual, so I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point.

Banking Supervision

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
I am publishing today a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals for strengthening banking supervision, with a view to bringing a new banking Bill before the House early in the next Session.
The proposals contained in the White Paper reflect the vital importance that this Government attach to effective supervision. They build on the findings of the review of banking supervision that I set up exactly a year ago today under the chairmanship of the Governor of the Bank of England, in the wake of the Johnson Matthey Bankers debacle. Six months later, when the group's report was published, I told the House that the Government were minded to accept its two key recommendations. I can now confirm that both will be implemented.
First, the new legislation will extend to banks the higher supervisory standards that Labour's 1979 Banking Act applied only to licensed deposit takers, and not to recognised banks. That means that the so-called two-tier system will go. I have, however concluded that it would be right to confine the use of the name "bank" to institutions with at least £5 million in paid up equity capital.
Second, the Government will do whatever is needed to permit effective two-way communication between supervisors and bank auditors. If this can be done on the basis of agreed professional guidelines, underpinned by statute, well and good; if not, we shall not hesitate to take appropriate further powers.
However, assisted by the extensive consultations that have taken place since I made my statement to the House in June, I have become convinced that it would be right in a number of respects to go beyond the Leigh-Pemberton committee's recommendations.
The key to better supervision is the organisation and ability of the supervisors themselves. Last October, the Governor announced changes in the Bank's organisation to give supervision a higher priority. To carry that further, he will now set up, as soon as possible, a new board of banking supervision within the Bank of England. The board will be given statutory backing in the forthcoming legislation. It will be chaired by the Governor, and a majority of its members will be experienced practitioners from outside the Bank of England. That will bring independent outside expertise to bear at the highest level and give more forceful direction to the task of bank supervision. The board's views will be separately identified in the Bank's annual report, which I lay before the House.
Second, supervisors cannot do their jobs unless they have adequate, accurate and timely information. That was one clear lesson of the JMB affair. Under the existing legislation, it is not a criminal offence to mislead the supervisors, even if this is done knowingly or recklessly. I propose to make it one—with appropriate penalties.
As I told the House in June, one of the most conspicuous reasons for JMB's failure was that it was over-committed to a small number of closely related borrowers. Building on the Leigh-Pemberton committee's recommendation, I propose to make it a statutory

requirement for banks to notify all such exposures in excess of 10 per cent. of their capital base; and all exposures in excess of 25 per cent. will require prior notification.
Important as they are, rules of this kind are not enough. Supervisors need to have a better knowledge of individual institutions at first hand. I therefore welcome the steps that have recently been taken to increase the frequency of supervisory visits to banks, on a routine basis as well as where there are grounds for prudential concern.
The nature of banking is changing fast and the supervisory system has to keep up with it. We cannot prescribe for every eventuality in advance. In particular, there is a risk that new forms of deposit-taking may fall through the supervisory net. I therefore propose to take powers to vary by secondary legislation the definition of deposits and deposit-taking around which the legislation' will continue o be structured.
I am also very conscious that banking supervision can no longer be considered in isolation. The Government are urgently considering the supervisory problems posed by the growth of financial conglomerates. One of the most obvious requirements is that those who supervise banks should be able to exchange information with other supervisory authorities. Legislation this session will make that possible. Changes in the confidentiality requirements, including those in the Banking Act, will be secured through the financial services and building societies Bills this session.
The details of these and other proposals are in the White Paper. They represent a considered, full and prompt response to the real lessons of the Johnson Matthey Bankers affair. The system of supervision we will be putting in place will be strict. without being a straitjacket. The proposals avoid the pitfalls of unnecessary bureaucracy and administrative upheaval. They also avoid the danger of setting out rules so rigid that they encourage compliance with their letter but not with their sprit.
As I told the House in June, an effective system of banking supervision is essential, not merely for the protection of depositors but for the financial health of the economy as a whole. Effective supervision is also a vital weapon in the fight against fraud, which the Government are determined to do all in their power to combat. Supervision cannot eradicate risk—nor should it—and it must not stifle competition. Nor, above all, can it derogate in the slightest degree from the overriding responsibility of managers to run their businesses soundly and properly.
Together with the Building Societies Bill, to be read for the Second time on Thursday, and the forthcoming financial services legislation, I believe that the proposals outlined in this White Paper will help to create a comprehensive and effective statutory framework for a rapidly changing financial services sector.
I commend the White Paper to the House.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: Does the Chancellor realise that outside the City and the Tory party the proposals that he has outlined will be regarded as grossly inadequate, a reflection more of the City's views and values than of the growing concern about supervision of the City in general and the banking system in particular? Will he understand that confidence will not be restored while the duties of supervision essentially remain within the Bank of England? Negligence in the Bank of England contributed to the Johnson Matthey scandal. When asked


[Mr. Roy Hattersley] to report on the lessons learnt from that affair, an inquiry dominated by the Bank of England made recommendations that even the Chancellor rejects; yet the power of supervision is to be given to the Bank of England.
While the Chancellor, in his own words, retains the powers "within the Bank of England", some of the proposals that we welcome and some of the proposls that our pressure brought about — such as the statutory backing and the extension of the criminal law to cover the misleading of supervisors—will be seen as generally inadequate.
I ask the Chancellor the basic question relating to his statement: Why must the board of banking supervision remain in the City's own club? Why can it not be created outside, with all the additional confidence that its independence would provide?
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer some specific questions? For example, when the supervisory body is told of an exposure of more than 25 per cent., what powers will that body possess? If it discovers that the bank in question is over-exposed, what can it do about it other than note it and worry about it?
What changes does the right hon. Gentleman propose in the confidentiality requirements? When shall we hear of them, and when will they be passed into law? Indeed, does he appreciate the need for speed in this operation and the need to introduce the new legislation—the statutory backing — quickly to overcome any feeling that the Government do not want to tackle this matter urgently?
Do the Chancellor and the Leader of the House appreciate that the whole question of the supervision of the City is now such a matter of national concern that a debate in the House is urgently needed? Are they aware that, if the Government will not give time for such a debate, the Opposition will provide it at the first opportunity?

Mr. Lawson: My response to the right hon. Gentleman's last point is that I have set out in the White Paper important matters which I recognise the House might well wish to debate. However, that is a matter for the Leader of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman's categorisation of the measures which I have outlined, and which are outlined more fully, as inadequate, is wholly and completely untrue, but we shall, no doubt, have an opportunity to discuss that in the context of the forthcoming Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions and made allegations about the Bank of England, allegations which I wholly reject. The JMB affair was a lapse, but a lapse from a very high supervisory standard which the Bank of England has carried out—[Interruption.]—over a number of years and which is recognised as such throughout the world.
The legislative framework which I am now tightening was put in place by the Labour Government. That framework, the 1979 Act, was inadequate. It took them five years—from the secondary banking crisis of 1974 until 1979 — to legislate. I am proposing to legislate twice as fast after the JMB affair.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what the supervisory body could do. It has the ultimate power to revoke the licence of any bank to take deposits, and that is a very profound sanction indeed.
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question about the confidentiality requirements—I assume that he was referring to the relationship between auditors and supervisors—is that he will see them set out in annex 4 at the back of the White Paper.

Sir William Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people, in the City and throughout the country, will welcome the strengthening of the 1979 Act, particularly in bringing the banks under control and especially in view of the imminence of the Financial Services Bill?
Is he further aware that the flexibility between auditors and supervisors should ensure that any misdemeanour, or suggestion of misdemeanour, involving any deposit taker, be it a bank or any other deposit taker, will be immediately recognised? A two-way movement of information, from supervisors to auditors and from auditors to supervisors, will ensure that, if an investigation is necessary, it will be speedy and accurate. That should be wholeheartedly welcomed by the House and the City because it is essential to ensure that the integrity of the City is maintained.

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. Communication between supervisors and auditors is an entirely new departure. Up to now, supervisors have not communicated with auditors and auditors have not communicated with supervisors. That will be changed, and I am grateful for the help of the various accountants' bodies in co-operating fully with the changes that we have in mind. Normally that communication will take place in the presence of the bank in question, but there is provision in exceptional circumstances for the communication to take place directly between the supervisors and auditors.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Is the Chancellor aware that some of us argued long before the Banking Act 1979 was put on the statute book that the Bank of England should not be responsible for banking supervision? Will he therefore reconsider the role that the Bank of England will play? Although the establishment of the new board is a welcome step, will he confirm that all its members will be appointed by the Governor of the Bank of England? Does he agree that it would be much better if the Bank of England carried on its role as a central bank like other central banks and that the supervisory function should be carried out by an independent board? Will he consider that possibility? Will he also note that the other provisions in the statement are a welcome strengthening of the present regime?

Mr. Lawson: I note the points made by the hon. Gentleman. As a member of the Labour party, he was a supporter of the Bankers Act 1979. Appointments to the board of banking supervision will be made by the Governor, but they must be made with my approval. I believe that that answers his point. Whether the supervisory authority should be the central bank is a fair point. If the hon. Gentleman reads the annex to the White Paper about overseas experience, he will see that in some countries the supervisory authority is the central bank but that in others it is not. As we have always had the Bank of England as the supervisory authority, I believe that it is better to build on and strengthen that authority rather than to have a tremendous upheaval which I do not believe would be warranted or fruitful.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement will be greatly welcomed,


because those of us who are anxious that the City's reputation should not be damaged by abuses of the system feel that the steps that he proposes will be helpful? Would it not be extraordinarily dangerous at this stage to set up an entirely separate organisation with no experience of those matters rather than to build on the Bank of England's foundation? Will he give us an assurance that we shall not have to wait for the legislation to be introduced before positive steps are taken to improve the present position?

Mr. Lawson: My right hon. Friend is correct, and I welcome his remarks. Steps have already been taken. Mr. Sidney Proctor has been appointed special adviser on supervision to the Governor. He is an extremely experienced and distinguished commercial banker who has retired and can devote a great deal of time to the matter. The Governor has also strengthened numerically and in other ways the Bank of England's banking supervision department. In addition, the establishment of the board of banking supervision will not have to wait for the legislation. The Governor proposes to get on with that straight away.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch): Bearing in mind that this statement arises in large measure out of the wanton negligence of Robin Leigh-Pemberton, the Governor of the Bank of England, how can anyone place any trust in a system of supervision organised by that appalling deadbeat? Is it not time that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the bottle to tell the Prime Minister that Pemberton is not merely a disaster; he is a disgrace?

Mr. Lawson: There has been a great deal of talk about fraud of one kind or another. Fraud must be rooted out wherever it is found. Fortunately, it takes place only in exceptional circumstances in the City of London. It is wrong to imply otherwise.
The biggest fraud so far exposed is the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). He poses as the man who got things moving. [Interruption.] Listen to this. He did not even start—Hansard will show that this is so—his seemingly unending series of allegations until after my statement of 17 July informing the House that the fraud squad had already been called in. By engaging in a scurrilous McCarthyite smear campaign under the cloak of parliamentary privilege to further his sordid political objectives, the hon. Gentleman is succeeding only in damaging the good name of the City to the delight of our competitors overseas, and in impeding the police in their attempt to bring wrongdoers to court, as the police have already pointed out to him. To describe the hon. Gentleman as a pest would be unfair to pests.

Sir Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey): While any illegalities must be vigorously hunted down and their perpetrators suitably punished——

Mr. Sedgemore: You snivelling little git.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I prefer not to hear all of that.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Those of us who most abhor the scandals in the City at present sometimes find the interventions of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) to be counter-productive. While any illegalities must be hunted down and their perpetrators suitably punished, should we not, even in the present political atmosphere, be careful to bear in mind that the Bank of England is an extremely important

national asset, particularly in the international sphere where on many occasions it has saved past Labour Governments? Indeed, if there is ever another, Labour Government, they will probably look to it to save them again. Should we not bear that in mind when scoring short-term party political points? My personal belief is that the Bank of England is, in the British context, the appropriate body to continue to conduct banking supervision.

Mr. Lawson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As he will have heard, I reached the same conclusion.

Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East): Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer explain where market forces end and fraud begins?

Mr. Lawson: If the hon. Gentleman does not know that, he is not fit to be a Member of the House.

Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether it should be the duty of the auditors of the day to report independently to the bank's supervisors without the knowledge of the bank, if necessary?

Mr. Lawson: That is a difficult question, and my hon. Friend is right to raise it. I believe that that would place considerable difficulties in the way of auditors. My conclusion is that it is better to adopt the normal procedure, and that the auditor and supervisor should have their dialogue in the presence of the bank in question, while reserving powers, if need be, in special circumstances for there to be a direct dialogue between auditors and supervisors without the presence of the bank.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Chancellor consider adopting in the Bill the principle that I have been advocating for defence contractors who make excess profits, whereby if an employee identifies fraud he should be compensated from the public purse?

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is an assiduous Committee member, as I know from experience on many occasions in Standing Committees on Finance Bills of old, and I am sure that he will find himself in Committee on this Bill, when he can make that point. However, I do not think that that would be a sensible proposal.

Mr. Peter Rees: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Governor of the Bank of England is a distinguished and honourable public servant who deserves better of the House than to be traduced by the vulgar criticisms of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore)?

Mr. Lawson: I agree strongly with my right hon. and learned Friend. It is appalling how the hon. Gentleman seeks to traduce the Governor of the Bank of England, the Bank of England and the entire City of London to further his political objectives. It can mean only that people in Tokyo, Frankfurt, Zurich and other places will laugh all the way to their banks.

Mr. John Ryman: Will the Chancellor consider calmly and quietly for a moment what real sanctions there are, apart from the ultimate sanction of revocation of the licence, if the supervision board finds negligence or fraud? A complaint to the police takes a long time to investigate, and the resources of the fraud squad are far too limited to cope with the mass of complaints that emerge from time to time and that require thorough and lengthy investigation.

Mr. Lawson: As I announced, the legislation will create a new offence of misleading the supervisors for which there will be severe penalties, substantial fines or imprisonment. I announced as far back as July 1984 the Government's decision to set up a fraud investigation group, which was before the Johnson Matthey Bankers affair, and which has considerably strengthened the Government's and the authorities' resources for pursuing fraud wherever it may be.

Mr. Alex Fletcher (Edinburgh, Central): I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but I should like to press him a little further on the question of resources. I am sure that he will agree that more staff will be needed and will have to be sufficiently qualified as accountants, lawyers, bankers and others, not just in banking supervision but in insurance and other things as well. Can he assure the House that, in attracting people of the right quality, there will be no Civil Service-type restrictions on the grades at which they can be employed so that they can come into the business and do a proper job?

Mr. Lawson: It is important that those who are engaged in the seeking out and prosecution of fraud, whether in the Department of Trade and Industry or in the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions, must be of sufficient calibre, and that is something that the Government will unstintingly seek to achieve.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the Chancellor accept that his proposal will be seen by the public at large as following the old principle of "set a thief to catch a thief"? Will he suggest ways in which he might undertake some positive screening of the people who will be on the supervisory board?

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Member should know that I have suggested a considerable strengthening of the system of banking supervision, which has a good record. That is widely acknowledged throughout the world. The JMB affair was a lapse from its high standard. The measures that I have announced will strengthen it still futher and make it better than any other banking supervision system.

Mr. Tim Smith: Are not these proposals tough and comprehensive — much more so than anything proposed by the Labour Government of which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was a member? Is not the real danger that, if we go too far, 2 million jobs and £6 billion worth of exports will be threatened as financial services companies move offshore?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right—there is a real danger of that. I do not ask anybody to pronounce now, but I hope that when hon. Members have read the White Paper and seen what is proposed they will desist from uninformed criticism, which can only be bad for the country.

Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West): I am sure that the Chancellor will agree that the various fraud cases about which we have heard recently have reduced in the eyes of the British public confidence in the City and all the other institutions. Does he agree that, in order to regain that confidence, it would be desirable to publish some of the findings of the new board of banking supervision? Will that happen, and, if so, to what extent?

Mr. Lawson: The board of banking supervision will make an independent report of its own, to be contained

within the annual report of the Bank of England. What it chooses to report will inevitably be governed by the laws concerning banking confidentiality.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill that he has announced today could be tough, along with the Financial Services Bill, and that the need for that is because of the huge financial conglomerates that will come about and may spawn things of which many in the City will not have experience? Bearing in mind also that the Bank of England is an adviser to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would it not be a sensible move if the Chancellor imported into his Department some people of great expertise in the City—although not those who are likely to go back to the City, who may have something else to gain? Would it not be a good idea if three or four people who have spent their lives in the City and understand it and the Treasury were there so that they could give five to seven years of good advice to prevent many of these things from happening? In the end is it not right that the buck stops here? Whenever there is a scandal, the Government cannot say that it has nothing to do with them. If it is in the end, therefore, to do with Government, is it not better for the Chancellor to have his own team of experts on hand to handle his advice?

Mr. Lawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am quite sure that he means well, as he always does, but I have to say two things to him. First, I have every confidence in my officials in the Treasury. Secondly, the duty of supervising British banks is not laid upon the Treasury but is laid, and will be quite clearly laid by the legislation to which I have referred, on the Bank of England. Therefore, there will be a duty laid on the Bank of England to have supervisory staff of the appropriate quality and calibre and also to have independent outsiders to ensure that there is a strengthening of the enforcement of supervision at the top.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to protect the subsequent business of the House. The Chancellor announced that there will be a debate. However, I draw to the attention of the House the fact that there will be an opportunity tomorrow to debate this matter on the Consolidated Fund Bill under item no. 3.

Mr. Rob Hayward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask that during the Christmas recess you should ask that your amplifiers should be looked at, given the language used by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), aimed at the Chancellor of the Exchequer? It described him as a snivelling little git. It was clearly audible in the Chamber and such language is clearly disgraceful and unparliamentary.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In a highly charged atmosphere I did not hear all that was said and I do not think that it was directed at the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although it may not, in strict terms, be unparliamentary language, it is not the kind of language that we want to hear in civilised debate.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You probably heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer say in response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch


(Mr. Sedgemore) that questions on these matters had not been put down until July. May I remind you that I put down questions on 23 October 1984? For that reason, I thought that there might be a chance to explain that in a question to the Chancellor.

Mr. Speaker: That is bad luck on the hon. Gentleman. However, he is one of the hon. Members who has applied for a debate on the Consolidated Fund, and he stands a very good chance of being called.

Mr. Richard Holt: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), Mr. Speaker. Whether or not the atmosphere was charged, the remark was clearly audible throughout the Chamber. Will you use your good offices, Mr. Speaker, to call upon the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. First, I do not know which hon. Gentleman made that comment. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, under this canopy I do not hear everything.

Mr. Sedgemore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of your reference to civilised debate in the House, I wonder whether you could strike a balance between an East End epithet and an allegation. I have told the truth. Since when has the truth been a McCarthyite smear?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman and to all other hon. Members that we should take great care about imputations concerning the characters of others who are not in the House.

Supplementary Benefit (Board and Lodging Payments)

4·3 pm

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the position concerning supplementary benefit board and lodging payments following the Court of Appeal decision last Friday.
As the House will be aware, the court upheld Mr. Justice Mann's decision in the Divisional Court on 31 July that there was no power to make two paragraphs of the regulations passed by the House in April. The court rejected a cross appeal that the Social Security Advisory Committee had not been properly consulted before the regulations were made.
The House will wish to know that the Government do not intend to appeal further. We shall take steps to identify from our records those cases in which arrears may be due because we did not meet the full charge, and to pay these arrears as soon as possible. To this end, we have sought and received from the court today further guidance on how such arrears should be assessed.
I should make it clear that the Court of Appeal judgment does not affect the current benefit position of those in board and lodging. Those payments are covered by the fresh regulations agreed by the House last month which came into effect on 25 November.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett (Derby, South): Is the Minister for Social Security aware that his statement, both in its nature and in its perfunctory length, is an insult to the House and, much more than that, is an insult to the thousands of elderly, handicapped and vulnerable people who have been illegally cheated and short-changed by the Government since the regulations came into effect? How dare the Minister come to the Dispatch Box to make that statement and utter not one word of apology or explanation for all the suffering that has been caused. It is not even as if the Government can complain that they have not been warned. Initially when the regulations were introduced the Social Security Advisory Committee heard from over 500 organisations that wrote to condemn the proposed regulations. It was the largest number ever to condemn such proposals, apart from those who wrote to condemn the Fowler reviews.
We should like the Minister to say, first, whether it is the case, as he claims in his statement, that the Government sought clarification from the court or whether, as we have been informed, the Government tried once again to put pressure on the court to weaken the judgment that had been delivered so as to deprive claimants. Will the Minister admit that if the Government had accepted the plain implications of the judgment—that cash limits also are illegal—not only would many claimants have been saved hardship but his Department's task in identifying those who should have repayments would have been made singularly easier?
Secondly, will the Minister tell us how his Department proposes to trace those who are owed money? Does he understand that it would be completely unacceptable and grossly unjust to place the burden of the claim upon individuals rather than upon his Department in seeking to identify them?
Thirdly, how far back does the Department intend the repayments to go? The clear implication of the Court of Appeal's judgment is that everything that the Government have done on board and lodging since the freeze in September 1984 has been illegal as well as completely unjust and unworkable and that everybody who has had a claim since then may be entitled in law to a refund. May we therefore have an assurance from the Minister that the cases will be dealt with on that basis? May we also have an assurance that the local authorities, who may have been giving topping-up payments, will have reimbursed to them the several hundreds of thousands of pounds that it has cost them and that they and the claimants will be compensated for all the problems that have been caused?
At this point in this extraordinary saga of incompetence, arrogance, injustice and illegality, will the Minister tell us what confidence anybody can have—indeed, what confidence he has—in the legality of the present regulations, which are also being challenged in the courts and which we have told him repeatedly we do not believe, meet the basic issues raised by the Cotton case? Do the Government yet recognise that the nature of the problem is the increase in homelessness and the increase in the numbers who are in need of care and that the Government should be seeking to help, not to penalise, those whose problems their policies have at best exacerbated and often may have caused, especially those who are physically and mentally handicapped, who stand to be affected next April by the present regulations?
Finally, will the Minister tell the House that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is now considering withdrawing the regulations—not, as before, in order to do nothing whatever for months and then to rush them through, without consultation, as an emergency at the last minute, but so that he may properly consult his own Social Security Advisory Committee and the many organisations that are anxious to help to solve the problem by tackling its source, not by punishing its victims?

Mr. Newton: May I take the hon. Lady's questions roughly in reverse order. It was precisely because we were concerned to protect those vulnerable people to whom she referred that we sought to introduce fresh regulations a month ago. If the hon. Lady considers both the judgment and what I said when I introduced the regulations last month she will realise that the judgment has vindicated our decision to ensure a clear position for claimants when the judgment was delivered. Otherwise it would have called into question many of the payments that are currently being made to those who are in residential care and nursing homes. In that sense the Government are very aware of the problems expressed by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett).
The hon. Lady asked about the legality of the present regulations and compensation for local authorities, an issue that has been raised by at least one local authority. She will know that both issues are the subject of current legal proceedings and the House will understand when I say that I do not think it right to comment further on such matters.
The hon. Lady also referred to the freeze regulations that preceded the April 1985 regulations. I remind her that that was not a specific issue and the position is not on all fours with the April 1985 regulations.
The main thrust of the hon. Lady's points involved the Government's proposals to pay the arrears and their purpose in seeking clarification from the court this morning. The Government intend and expect to be able to identify the relevant claimants from the records. Ever since the original Cotton judgment in July, the Government have ensured, for obvious reasons, that such cases were kept separately marked in local offices so that we could trace and identify cases quickly should the need arise. Arrears have, of course, already been paid in cases affected by the time limits. We shall act with equal promptness to identify cases and pay arrears in relation to the judgment on financial limits.
The Government were particularly anxious to achieve clarification on two particularly important issues, and I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that that was done in good faith this morning. First, we sought clarification as to whether there was any maximum at all in the light of the judgment made last week. As I explained to the House when this matter was last debated in November, it was not entirely clear whether the outcome would mean that the old local limit system under the 1983 regulations came back into effect or whether there would no longer be an effective maximum between April and November. That point has been clarified by the court and there is no maximum between 29 April and 24 November in these cases.
The other point, to which the hon. Lady will probably attach more importance, is that one possible interpretation of last week's judgment was that young people would not qualify as boarders and that they would have to be reduced to the non-householder rate from 29 April to 24 November. It has been established that it is proper for these people to be regarded as boarders and therefore to pay them as boarders and to discharge the obligation on arrears as soon as possible.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: While I accept that public money was being extracted by many people, will my hon. Friend nevertheless bear in mind that a minority have suffered gravely as a result of the regulations? The people who have particularly suffered are those who have no family of their own and have made a new family by living for some years in lodgings. I trust that he will remember those people because they need his help.

Mr. Newton: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall bear that group in mind, as we sought to do with the regulations that have now been partly overturned and in the fresh regulations that were brought before the House in November. We shall continue to do everything to protect those people.

Mr. Frank Field: On behalf of Simon Cotton, my constituent who took the Government to court over this matter, I thank the Minister for his statement this afternoon.
The Minister must be aware that his policy has been declared illegal and unlawful, twice by the courts and that that policy has resulted in some young people being made homeless, many being underpaid and others moving around the country in an attempt to claim benefit. Will the hon. Gentleman explain what measures he will take to


trace the claimants? He spoke about keeping records since the Cotton judgment. What steps is the Minister taking to trace the 60,000 or 70,000 claimants who attempted to claim benefit prior to the Cotton judgment?
I would like the Minister to look to the future. He confidently asserts that the Government's current regulations are lawful, but he must be aware that the Cotton success paves the way for the present legislation to be challenged in the courts. He must also be aware, and should have told the House, that when the Government's lawyers said that they might appeal to the House of Lords, the Lord Chief Justice said that if they had the nerve to return he would reject that application out of hand.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on Friday 13 December Camden council obtained leave for a judicial review against the current regulations? There is a large question mark over the Government's current proposals. Surely it would be advisable for the Minister to follow the advice that is constantly offered by the Opposition. In our opinion, he cannot gain the powers by regulation; he needs to seek primary legislation and he will gain the Opposition's support if he deals with the abuse that undoubtedly exists, particularly if he concentrates on the landlords.

Mr. Newton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the characteristic generosity of his opening remark. However, I did acknowledge, although I did not refer directly to Camden, that there were further court cases in process. That was why I did not feel that it was correct to comment, as they are manifestly sub judice.
I have already explained what action will be taken to trace claimants. Plainly, we cannot directly trace through the records people who did not establish claims, and for whom no record exists. But if cases arise they will be considered, though I emphasise that in these cases, as in others, it is not for Ministers but for adjudication officers to decide what the entitlement may be within the current available guidance on the law.

Mr. Robin Squire: I welcome the news that my hon. Friend is not proceeding further with legislation in that particular aspect of the regulations. None the less, as other areas of the regulations are being challenged, will he undertake that if or when he is convinced that the current regulations are flawed he will come back either with new regulations or, if necessary, with new primary legislation?

Mr. Newton: I assure my hon. Friend and the House that the Government will continue to ensure that their obligations to Parliament and to the court's rulings in such matters will be faithfully adhered to. As all hon. Members will agree, the Government responded very rapidly in the appropriate cases to the original Cotton judgment. By my statement today I hope that I have made it clear that the Government intend to respond with equal rapidity to the Court of Appeal judgment last week.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I also welcome the Minister's statement, although I reiterate the opposition of the alliance to a system that is particularly pernicious in the way that it affects young people.
Let me press the point made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). The Minister said that his Department was contacting the claimants who had

outstanding money due. Does that mean that claimants will be written to individually? When will the local offices get confirmation that that is what the Minister requires of them?
Can the hon. Gentleman also say how much money is at stake, as my arithmetic suggests that a considerable sum of public money is involved? In future, when the Minister is considering changes in the system of delivering benefit—everyone can argue about the benefit levels, which can be changed by secondary legislation and nobody objects to that—will he learn a lesson and make changes by primary legislation so that the implications can be properly rehearsed in the House?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has made that point in several different forums within the past few hours and he will have heard what my right hon. Friend said to him recently in another forum on that wider matter. We shall certainly do our best to contact claimants by whatever means. Writing will normally be the most appropriate means—

Mr. Frank Dobson: What addresses will the Minister send the letters to?

Mr. Newton: I shall deal with the intervention from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) when I have dealt with the original question.
Writing will normally be the most appropriate means, and that will be a responsibility of our local offices. We are proceeding urgently with the issue of instructions to our local offices, but at present I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact time by which those instructions will go out. However, I point to the precedent earlier in the year followng the original Cotton judgment, when we acted within a week to get instructions out and completed the payment of arrears within two months.
For obvious reasons, I cannot at present give the hon. Gentleman estimates of the numbers of claimants who will be entitled to arrears or the amount involved, but he may like to know that, in the case of the time limits, we have paid arrears in 8,500 cases, and the total amount of money involved has been just under £250,000.

Mr. Roger Gale: Does my hon. Friend recall that the regulations were originally introduced to curb the abuse of a system which was designed to help the elderly but which was being abused by unscrupulous rest home owners? Does he also recall that young people were being exploited by unscrupulous landlords? Many Conservative Members believe that my hon. Friend acted entirely honourably and are extremely grateful for the action that he took last summer. Will he assure the House that he and his Department will take whatever action is necessary to prevent any recurrence of the sort of abuse that we faced last summer?

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I assure him that we shall continue to prevent abuse in this area. I am also grateful to him for acknowledging that, whatever the concern about the policy in the past, it must be right for the Government firmly to hold to their obligations to the courts and the findings of the courts in the way that I have indicated this afternoon.
Perhaps I can do the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras the courtesy of responding to his sedentary intervention. Clearly, we shall seek to correspond with people at the addresses that we have on file, but there will


manifestly be a problem if we are unable to trace claimants. However, by making this statement, I hope that they will become aware of what has happened. We are now talking not about people who have necessarily been moved on but about cases in respect of the financial limits.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: With my experience of being Parliamentary Private Secretary to the late Dick Crossman 17 or 18 years ago, I have the feeling that Alan Mane or the late Dame Muriel Riddesdell and their lawyers would have warned the Secretary of State. At any time did any of the hon. Gentleman's lawyers or senior civil servants give him some kind of premonition of the Cotton judgment and that what he was doing might be ultra vires? My experience of the Department was that those lawyers, who are jolly clever and competent, would have warned the Minister. Did not they do so in this case, and did not the Minister have an inkling that this would happen?

Mr. Newton: The convention is that Ministers do not normally refer in detail to the advice that they receive, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that Ministers—

Mr. Dalyell: Were you warned?

Mr. Newton: In view of the imputation that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make, I would be grateful if he would listen to the end of my sentence. I hope that he will accept from me that it would be inconceivable—if he does not, I can only assure him with all the emphasis at my command—that neither I, the Secretary of State nor anyone else would deliberately have proceeded to maintain regulations that we were advised were unlawful.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Is it not somewhat bizarre that, whenever the High Court rules against a Government Department, the Opposition shout that the Minister concerned has broken the law, as if that Minister

had deliberately offended against the criminal code? Surely the reality is that English law is now so complex that there will inevitably be occasions when the High Court will be asked to interpret legislation and the actions of Government Departments. On occasions it will rule against Government Departments and on others it will rule in favour. The protection for us all is that there is a High Court that seeks to protect the interests of all citizens by interpreting the laws and ensuring that nothing unlawful is carried out.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I agree with what he says. A number of people both inside and outside the House may have overlooked the fact that these regulations were submitted to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in the normal way. Their vires were not questioned by the Joint Committee and they were passed by Parliament in an affirmative vote.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: In view of the admitted difficulties involved in tracing the claimants, will the Minister give an assurance that he will give generous time limits so that people can claim the arrears?

Mr. Newton: We will expect to deal with this in as open and fair a way as possible to make sure that we pay arrears to those to whom they are due. The House can certainly have my undertaking that we shall do that.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is to do with the answer that we have just received—

Mr. Speaker: Is it a continuation of it?

Mr. Faulds: No, it is a quite different point, but it is relevant to what we have just been told. Can we for once break with the conventions of the House and agree that, since they cannot defend themselves, the response to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) should come from the Civil Service Box?

Mr. Speaker: The point of order was addressed to me, not to the Minister, and it is not a matter for me.

Colliery Review Tribunal

Mr. John Ryman: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the continuing failure of the independent colliery review tribunal to deal with urgent appeals relating to collieries threatened with closure immediately after Christmas.
In Bate's colliery in Blyth, 1,400 men will be made redundant if it is closed, as proposed by the NCB. I recognise that I must persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is so urgent that it should have priority over the business that has already been arranged. In view of recent developments, my respectful submission is that, although this tribunal was set up by the NCB in October this year, since then it has been quite impossible to obtain any information from the Government as to the procedure of that tribunal which will hear appeals against pit closures.
I have asked the Secretary of State for Energy and the Leader of the House several questions about the procedure of this tribunal, but both Ministers, doing their incompetent best, were quite unable to answer them. No one knows how this tribunal will function or even how it will be contacted. We do not know whether it will sit in London or in the region. Consequently, it is quite impossible to make adequate preparations to present a case against pit closure, either by the unions involved or the Blyth Valley council which is vitally interested in the outcome of these appeals. No statement has been made by the Government and no opportunity has been given for a debate, as a result of which the whole thing is extremely unsatisfactory and is surrounded in mystery.
The urgency of my application is demonstrated by the fact that Bate's colliery will close on 27 December, just two days after Christmas Day, and I hope to persuade you—I appreciate the high onus of proof on me—to allow this matter to be discussed this afternoon or this evening, because unless we have some information about the work of the colliery review tribunal, it will be quite impossible to prepare a case.
The NCB has been conducting a deliberate, systematic and fraudulent campaign to delay these procedures as long as possible, in the hope that, with Christmas overtaking events, the coal mining community in my constituency will then not have sufficient time to do anything about it. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider this matter seriously before coming to a decision.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Ryman) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the continuing failure of the independent colliery review tribunal to deal with urgent appeals relating to collieries threatened with closure immediately after Christmas".
I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but, as he mentioned himself, my duty under Standing Order No. 10 is to consider whether a subject should be given priority over the business already set down for this evening or tomorrow. I regret that I cannot find that the matter which he has raised meets all of the criteria laid down under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at this day's sitting, if proceedings on the Motion relating to Register of Members' Interests have not been disposed of before Ten o'clock:—

(1) Mr. Speaker shall at that hour put the Question on any Amendment which may have been moved, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any other Amendments selected by him which may then be moved, and on the Main Question or the Main Question as amended; and
(2) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 4 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &amp;c. (negative procedure)), the Motion relating to Water may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. David Alton: I do not intend to detain the House but this is a unique opportunity to raise an important procedural principle. I welcome the decision to change the order of business this evening so that there might be four Divisions on the amendments that you have selected, Mr. Speaker.
This is an important principle and I welcome the precedent which I hope will be extended to other occasions. We take the view that, apart from the Queen's Speech, which is the one chance every year when we are able to debate a second amendment and vote upon it, we far too rarely have the opportunity to debate and vote on other shades of opinion. Far too often our views are polarised and we are forced to accept black and white issues when there are often many shades of grey. Back Benchers who may hold a dissenting view rarely have the opportunity to table their amendments or debate them, so Front Bench views are often the ones that are set in concrete, and Back Benchers are invariably forced to vote upon them.
The present arrangements do not allow for the multi-party system which now operates. We have a multi-party system but it is stuck in a two-track groove. At present, even though our amendments may be tabled and appear on the Order Paper, they are not printed in the Official Report, thus the public are unlikely to learn of views other than those of the two Front Benches.
This issue was last examined in 1976 by the Procedure Select Committee. At that time, many Labour Back Benchers supported our view. I know that many hon. Members agree that such opportunities should be provided on other occasions. It should not be necessary to bring the Leader of the House here to table a business motion. We believe that such provision could be left to the discretion of Mr. Speaker. The Standing Order could be changed so that Mr. Speaker selects two or more amendments which might be voted upon automatically at 10 o'clock. It would be in the interests of all Members not to be penned in by the practice of always voting for or against set piece positions. If what we are debating today were common practice, it would improve the quality of our debates and political life. I support the motion.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Courtesy requires me to acknowledge what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has said. I am sure he would not expect me to go beyond that except to observe that, the


longer I talk at this Box, the more I shall eat into the time available for the debate on Members' interests. I leave it at that.

Question put and agreed to.

Fire Precautions (Amendment)

Mr. Tony Lloyd (Stetchford): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Fire Precautions Act 1971 to extend provision to hospitals, nursing homes, elderly persons homes, mental institutions and similar premises; to limit the time available to occupiers or owners under the Act for bringing premises up to standard; to make further provision relating to the installation of sprinkler systems in public buildings and other places of public assembly; to ban the use of polyurethane foam in furniture; and to provide for educational and publicity programmes.
It is a sad irony that it requires a major disaster before the House amends the fire regulations. This year, we have had the Ringway airport disaster and the Bradford football ground fire.
Last Christmas in Bury, Greater Manchester, a family of eight and a family friend died in a tragic fire accident because Christmas wrappings fell into the fire grate and set the suite of furniture ablaze. Thus nine people died because of toxic fumes given off by the polyurethane foam that was used in that suite of furniture. It is a chilling prophesy, but it is likely that this Christmas we shall once again read of young children or indeed whole families dying in fires in similar circumstances.
The Home Office, in its review of fire policy in 1980, argued:
loss of life through fire is insignificant".
However, in 1984, 700 deaths were caused by fires in England and Wales—550 took place in the home and approximately three quarters of them were caused by the poisonous fumes given off by smouldering polyurethane foam. The Home Office, in its review of the Fire Regulations Act 1971, stated:
Although our present arrangements may bear favourable comparison with other countries, there is no room for complacency.
That is right, but the sad truth is that the Home Office has been extremely complacent in updating our fire regulations.
The deaths in Bury and, to some extent, at Manchester airport would not have taken place if the lessons of another disaster in Manchester had been learnt — the fire in Woolworth's in May 1979. Ten people died and a further 48 were injured. That disaster led to demands from Members of Parliament and the city of Manchester that something be done to tackle the problem of poisonous fumes as a considerable number of the deaths were caused by the fumes emitted from blazing furniture in the furniture department. It was said that the fire regulations were difficult to enforce and that it was difficult to prosecute Woolworth's because it had not been given time to bring its fire precautions up to scratch.
That is one of the reasons why this Bill would prevent prolongation of the period during which dwelling or company was allowed to bring its precautions up to scratch, thus preventing what happened with Woolworth's.
Woolworth's learnt from that disaster and, on reopening the store, ceased to stock polyurethane foam-filled furniture and installed sprinklers. The Home Office, having threatened regulations, brought in the modest regulation—the so-called cigarette test—which tests whether furniture will catch fire when a cigarette is dropped on it. The Home Office failed to introduce the other part of the regulations which were promised—the so-called match test.
The regulations which the Home Office brought in, nominally as a result of the Woolworth's fire, would not have stopped that fire taking place. They did not stop the fire taking place in Bury last year. The majority of the 500 deaths due to polyurethane foam-filled furniture could have been prevented, however, by adequate regulations in 1980 and if the Home Office had not acted so complacently.
This Bill would bring in the match test and other more stringent fire precautions for furniture and lead to the banning of the use of polyurethane foam in furniture. The Bradford football disaster is still fresh in the memories of hon. Members. Fifty-two people died but many believe that lives could have been saved if sprinklers had been installed at the ground. That is why my Bill would require the installation of sprinklers in relevant circumstances. There is another simple lesson to be learnt from Bradford. Self-regulation, which Bradford operated, does not work. The Home Office has argued that efficient precautions are the most cost-effective way in which to ensure the safety of people and property, but it is going in precisely the opposite direction by attempting to introduce self-regulation. My Bill insists that regulation should be extended to elderly persons' homes, mental institutions, hospitals and nursing homes.
Most people's thoughts turn to children and the home at Christmas. The House ought to turn its attention to the protection of children by introducing more adequate regulations to prevent the outbreak of fire. The Fire Brigades Union has said that the Bill will reduce deaths and injuries. I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill as this is an important issue throughout the year.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Lloyd, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Peter Pike, Mr. James Lamond and Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones.

FIRE PRECAUTIONS (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Tony Lloyd accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Fire Precautions Act 1971 to extend provision to hospitals, nursing homes, elderly persons homes, mental institutions and similar premises; to limit the time available to occupiers or owners under the Act for bringing premises up to standard; to make further provision relating to the installation of sprinkler systems in public buildings and other places of public assembly; to ban the use of polyurethane foam in furniture; and to provide for educational and publicity programmes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 February and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

ESTIMATES DAY

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1985–86

Class II, Vote 7

Overseas Aid

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1986 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Overseas Development Administration) on the official United Kingdom Aid Programme including capital subscriptions, other contributions and payments under guarantees to certain multilateral development banks and other bodies; subscriptions and grants in aid to certain international and regional organisations; bilateral capital aid and technical co-operation; refugee and other relief assistance; the cost of in-house Scientific Units; assistance, including grants in aid, to certain UK based institutions and voluntary agencies; loans to the Commonwealth Development Corporation; and pensions and allowances in respect of overseas service.—[Mr. Raison.]

Sir Anthony Kershaw: We are approaching the festive season and this is a very good opportunity to discuss the wants of others. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee considered the famine in Africa and visited five countries. We were deeply depressed by much of what we saw and impressed by the knowledge that a great deal of the horror and the disaster could have been avoided.
I say that the disaster could have been avoided, but I do not imply that the Governments or people of those countries have been stupid, negligent or idle. We must not understimate the real difficulties that they face while we are in our comfortable society. Many of them have a climate which is not especially favourable to agriculture and they have been plagued with drought for almost 10 years, which has successively eroded the defences of the people who live there. They have lost their land, their beasts, their houses, their possessions and finally their money. They are in no way able to protect themselves from disasters unaided.
Those factors have been made worse by a rapidly rising population which would have had its effect on what is at best marginal agriculture, even if natural disaster had not taken its toll. Political circumstances after the colonial era have always been uncertain. The roll call of successful and unsuccessful coups and rebellions would have been enough to distract any Government from peaceful and progressive purposes. Political reasons have often determined the distribution of such food as they have. It has often been directed to the urban population and close political supporters rather than to the weak and poor rural populations far away from main towns whose interests have been correspondingly neglected.
They all have an administrative apparatus which is far too weak to withstand the difficulties that they have experienced, and it is often far weaker than they themselves suppose. The Select Committee was struck by repeatedly being told in one country that the administration was so widespread and flexible that instructions from the centre could be transmitted instantly to the furthest villages in the land. I do not know how anybody could have harboured such an illusion. The telephones did not work


and communications were disrupted by rebellion. Whatever administrative apparatus that had been left behind by the colonial power had been completely eroded. The skills and communications necessary to run a country which needs a great deal of running simply did not exist. Immensely difficult choices have to be made in these weakened circumstances in such matters as exchange valuations, subsidies and resource allocations—choices that any country might find difficult. Above all, we found that agricultural policies discouraged farmers and made it less likely that they would grow the crops on which the rest of the country depends.
Any right hon. or hon. Member could have divined the problems that I have described, but we are entitled to say that more effective policies shall be followed in future. The Select Committee was encouraged by the fact that the countries concerned now recognise, especially in view of the Harare declaration, that different policies regarding agriculture would be in the interests of all of their countries. I hope that such decisions will now be taken, difficult though they may be. I hope that longer-term development can take priority over short-term expedience.
I was glad that, in their observations on our report, the Government recognised fully the greater importance of development as opposed to emergency aid. To what extent has our development aid programme been lamed by emergency aid expenditure on famine? My right hon. Friend the Minister, whose wise conduct of these affairs we all admire, says that development aid has been affected very little or not at all. He said in July last year that the development programme had not been affected by emergency aid. He repeated that statement in October. I find it hard to share his optimism.
We all recognise that there is slippage in the ODA programme. We cannot expect all of its schemes to run exactly on time and it is necessary to budget for a slippage towards the end of the year. If slippage must occur, however, must it amount to £86·5 million? That rather large slip is the estimated United Kingdom expenditure on famine relief in Africa. However, I freely concede that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development could contradict my figures, because they are so difficult to calculate. The figures on which we rely are concocted from different sources and on different dates, so a double estimate or no estimate could cover the same prices.
Nevertheless, it is unreal to say that the £86 million that we have been forced to expend on famine relief will not affect the development aid programme. In the last resort, money for food aid must be deducted from development aid. Certainly part of the money voted to the ODA was originally destined for emergency aid, but not to the extent of £86 million.
The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs concluded that it would only be fair to the development aid programme if new money were brought in. I am sorry that apparently that has not been possible. I say apparently, because it is difficult to follow how the calculations are made. Perhaps the emergency aid has not harmed the development aid programme to the extent that I have suggested. If I am wrong, it is because I cannot understand how the ODA arrives at its figures. I look forward to my right hon. Friend's reassurances.
There was some new money. It was used by the Royal Air Force in its effective airlift to the difficult areas of

Ethiopia, which ended today. That exercise cost £8·25 million, and no doubt has done much good in areas that would otherwise have starved. It is a tribute to the RAF that, as usual, the programme was carried out so efficiently. It is a tribute to the Ministry of Defence, which is not everyone's favourite when it comes to charity, that it provided the money.
The European Community Dublin summit vote of 1·2 million tonnes was a new and welcome move. The United Kingdom has participated fully in the delivery of that grain.
We provide more in famine relief to Africa through the European Community than we do bilaterally. This year bilaterally we gave £42 million worth of food aid and £47 million through the European Community. The Community made a slow start and it was rightly criticised by the Committee and others for that. However, the Community has now got its act together. The various titles of EC committees do not suggest by name that they address themselves specifically to these matters, but undoubtedly the problem has been gripped by the organisation and it appears now that the administration is running smoothly. I am sure that that is welcome.
However, I have criticisms of the European Community. It must realise that famine relief is not a method of supporting European agriculture, principally because of the cost. One year's storage of a tonne of grain costs £25. The cost of shipping that grain to Ethiopia is £250–10 times as much, as hon. Members will readily calculate. To store the grain indefinitely, or even eventually to throw it away, would cost only half as much as it would to give the grain to the starving countries. The European Community's preferred policy of transporting European grain is not in the best interests of the needy countries or of Europe.
The second reason why it is better to buy grain abroad, perhaps from the developing countries, is that the aid arrives more quickly. If the grain is bought nearby, it can be transported quicker than by sending it from Europe. If it is bought from a developing country there is a double benefit, because the country is provided with the foreign exchange that it so badly needs.
According to the recent harvest reports, stocks will be available in Africa this year. I hope that the system of buying those surplus stocks and sending them to needy areas next year will be adopted. I believe that the required food stocks will be available, whether from American, European or local sources. Then the main problem will return. The real reason why people starve to death in Africa and elsewhere is not because they are hungry, although that has something to do with it, but because of poverty. India, which is now an exporter of food, suffers as much from malnutrition, and death from hunger, as it did when it was an importer of food. That is a problem with which it is difficult to cope.
My third criticism of the European Community is that it relies too much upon food aid and attaches too much importance to it. If food aid is supplied instead of foreign exchange, that is indeed as good as foreign exchange and should not be despised. But the Governmmt reply to the Foreign Affairs Committee states:
Most food aid from the European Community is given to recipient Governments to sell in urban markets.
That activity will continue to create more difficulties for the provision of long-term agriculture development. I am glad that


the Governmnt will continue to press for more rigorous appraisal and co-ordination of non-emergency food aid.
During the past 18 months, we have learnt many lessons from the crisis that has engulfed parts of Africa. One lesson is that he who gives quickly gives twice. I hope that the ODA's emergency unit, which has earned much praise for its flexible and quick action, will be provided with more funds.
The famine in Africa is a nightmare for the world. It is terrible for Africa and we have a guilty conscience because we believe that we should have seen it coming and that we should have done more. It is a blessing that the famine is now receding, but let us hope that our precautions for the future will ensure that it does not return.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) and his Select Committee have done a great service to the House. They have produced two reports, one of which appeared earlier in the year and provided a detailed survey of famine in Africa. Secondly, there is the report which considers the Winter Estimates and casts some light on the dark and difficult area of Government statistics. The House has been well served also by the all-party group on overseas development, which published its own critical document. I hope that its severe criticism of the Government in some respects will not cause the Government to do anything other than benefit from the challenging thoughts and ideas which it contains.
It has been said by a United Nations official:
The rains have recovered; Africa has not",
and that is currently the position. A number of the countries most severely affected by drought have experienced considerable improvements in weather conditions. Some of them, by a combination of that and food aid, are now in a much better position for the immediate future than they were months ago. Other countries continue to experience climatic difficulties. All still face the fundamental, long-term problem of dealing with what could be recurring famine and recurring hunger if we do not ensure that proper development assistance is given to them.
Aid at the basic level of subsistence farming is the priority which emerges from the Select Committee's report and from the all-party report to which I have referred. It is upon that that we seek to press the Government, and others may do so in their contributions. A restoration of the priority of basic agriculture work and assistance to the farmer to grow his own food must be the key to the solution of the problem that exists in most of the countries about which we are talking. That has implications for the domestic policies of those countries as well as for the aid which we provide.
Unfortunately, aid has suffered in the very areas in which we should be most concerned. Aid to basic development has suffered at the expense of other considerations, such as trade-related assistance of various forms, which has as its priority as much the promotion of our own trade, however desirable that may be, as the interests and basic agriculture of the country concerned.
The all-party group quoted a ministerial comment that it was to become policy to give greater weight in the allocation of our aid to political, industrial and commercial considerations alongside our basic

developmental objectives. I submit that we should not be giving greater weight in the allocation of our aid to political, industrial and commercial considerations, however attractive those are in other contexts. If we do — and we must remember that, even if all our ambitions are achieved, our aid budget will remain limited—we shall not best serve the interests of the poor and hungry in the countries that we want to assist. Our industries and exporters can fight their battles and their campaigns for trade, and they can and should be assisted by various governmental activities, such as export credit, that are relevant. However, such considerations should not be a guiding factor, given the absolute priority of assisting long-term development. It is against that background that there have been cuts, which the Government have admitted, in long-term research staff, long-term development staff and in activities that are most relevant to helping basic subsistence farming. The developing trade-related side of aid activities is one area which has inhibited the basic and important work of development aid, and it is one that should be reversed.
The second factor which has played a part in limiting the amount of basic development aid has been, as the hon. Member for Stroud said when he opened the debate, famine relief itself. I do not think that anyone questions the competence with which the Government tackled the task of providing famine relief when they got down to it. Many of us, including the hon. Gentleman, criticised the Government for the time that they took to get the show on the road. However, when the real commitment was made, the work which was done was excellent. Plenty of tribute is due to the Overseas Development Administration and those who work within it for the way in which the work was carried out.
The criticism that emerges again and again is the effect that the diversion of resources will have on the rest of the work of the aid programme, especially basic development work. In the Select Committee's report on the winter Estimates there is a pointer to the difficulty of identifying what the money would otherwise have been spent on if it had not been diverted to aid. It is the Minister's plea that most of the famine relief moneys were found out of existing development programmes and that the development programmes of other areas of the world Ix ere not raided for it. It is claimed that the resources were found from slippage, from money which was not spent on other projects. It is extremely difficult to identify where the moneys would otherwise have been spent. The Select Committee and others who have commented have all said that we must assume that most of the moneys would have been spent on more basic development work of the sort which is so lacking. It is in that area that a greater commitment is required from the Government.
The public are aware of that. They are aware of the general problem and of the specific difficulties which arise. They appreciate the need for basic development work. Voluntary aid organisations have done much to inform the British public of the nature of the problem. Indeed, they are doing more and more all the time. That is another reason why development education work should be supported.
There has been a tremendous out-pouring of public generosity. I have in mind the Live Aid movement and all its associated activities, and the related boost in the work of almost all the voluntary agencies which work in the field. Impressive work has been done by schoolchildren,


in many instances of a notably well-informed sort. Associated with studies at school into the conditions of the countries which need assistance, they have undertaken voluntary work to target specific help to particular overseas projects. I find it moving to see how young people and children have become involved in this work and how they have set out to inform themselves and come to understand more about it.
I recall the 20,000 who participated in a lobby of Parliament. That is an example of massive public support and commitment. I can remember—I am sure others can as well—the days when one canvassed during elections and found that it was common to meet someone on a doorstep who asked, "Why is all this money being given to other countries? Shouldn't we concentrate on our problems at home?" I find that that is said less and less and more and more people understand that the fate of the hungry in the world is something about which they should be concerned on moral grounds. They understand also that they have every reason to be concerned about the issue if they care about the future peace and stability of the world.
A genuine transformation in public opinion has taken place. There will always be those who take the narrowest and most nationalistic, short-sighted view, but there has been a major change in public opinion upon which the Government, Foreign Office Ministers and Treasury Ministers should build. The task is easier for them now in justifying the enlargement of their budgets than it has been during certain periods in the past. There is a generosity in the public spirit which they should be seeking to match.
It is an improvement that the Minister, in his November announcement, suggested that there would be level funding for the overseas aid budget in the next few years if his inflation assumptions were accurate. I am not convinced about the accuracy of his assumptions about inflation, but the announcement showed some willingness on his part.
Many of us who take part in this debate will want to see Britain move positively nearer to the United Nations target, from which we have slipped back so disastrously over the past few years. If there are signs that we are to move in the right direction, let us seize on them. However, inflation is always higher than the forecasts of Governments, and I fear that we shall not achieve level funding and that we shall not see positive movement in the direction of the United Nations target.
Whatever is to be the amount of money that we spend, it is crucial that we examine how we spend it. We must assert the priority of basic agricultural development work. I accept that many other things are needed apart from the aid that we can provide. The task of tackling the debt problems of the poorest countries is a high priority for international considerations as well as for Britain's. The hon. Member for Stroud made a telling comment when he said that people die not merely because they are hungry, but because they are poor. There is the problem of poor countries and the problem of poor sections of countries' populations. That is one of the reasons why Socialist and Marxist philosophies often have a certain appeal in the poorest countries. Any Government of any poor country who took a narrow view of what the state should do would probably not be serving the interests of their people. However, it is discovered quickly that when Socialist and Marxist philosophies are implemented in some of the

poorest countries, they have a tendency to produce an enlargement of rather top-heavy and bureaucratic state machinery and not equalisation or a reduction of poverty.

Mr. Stuart Holland: What about China?

Mr. Beith: China is engaged in a remarkable process of reform. It is cleaning out its administrative system. It is a process which many of us admire. Labour Members should not be so quick to become defensive. I have raised a problem which they should recognise. Different political philosophies face different difficulties in the Third world. I contend that those which are heavily Socialist in their emphasis tend to end up producing a top-heavy state machinery and buttressing that by curtailing individual liberty to protect that machinery. Many of them do not reduce poverty.
The result is not usually the eradication of that individual poverty which makes many people hungry. Those countries that forswear the Socialist path, stick to a pure capitalist course and make the assumption that the power of the state should be narrowed tend to make no contribution to the eradication of poverty, or make a contribution limited to the success of those who are able to prosper under a capitalist system. No political philosophy has provided a ready-made solution for the Third world. In all the countries new routes have to be found which embrace a recognition of what the state has to do, with some awareness of its limitations and dangers. It is significant that the simple solutions proffered by both sides of traditional politics have not solved the problems.
There are problems of policy for many of the countries concerned, not just in general political philosophy but in areas such as agriculture. The Harare declaration has been mentioned. That is one sign that there is a realisation in some of the countries that agricultural policies designed mainly to produce cash crops were, in most cases, the wrong avenue to pursue. Different avenues will now have to be taken and there will have to be changed priorities.
Although many of the areas of policy will be relevant to the solution of the problem of famine, it will continue to occur in countries where climatic conditions have dramatic effects unless we cater for those problems by contributing to basic agricultural development in a way that allows people to produce their own food and feed their own families. That must be the priority of overseas aid policy, and I urge it upon the Government.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I declare an interest in this subject because I serve as chairman of the British-Somali parliamentary group and of the Horn of Africa Council. Both of those bodies are acutely concerned about the famine in the north-eastern part of the African continent.
In November 1984 I visited the refugee camps along the Ethiopian border with my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and a former Member of the House, Colonel Billy McLean. As a consequence of that visit, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development was able to announce a £1 million emergency programme for the relief of refugees within the eastern part of Sudan within a calendar month.
The visit brought home to me a fact that will be all too deeply embedded in the consciousness of right hon. and hon. Members, that in so many instances famine is as


much a consequence of human evil, of internecine bloodshed, of civil war and politics as it is of the accidents of geography, topography, of agriculture and of climate. It is to the political dimension that I shall address my remarks.
When we visited the camps on the eastern frontier of the Sudan there were, at that stage of the emergency, two clear categories of refugees coming across. They were coming across like ships Out of the mist. One saw groups of tattered persons and families, sometimes with animals and sometimes without. The Eritreans had a common story to tell. They had been bombed and napalmed out of their villages and in some instances actually driven out of their villages by the operations of the Ethiopian army. If left to themselves the food problem would have been tolerable but the combination of civil war and an adverse harvest were insupportable and they had to move away into Sudan.
The Tigrean refugees told a somewhat different tale. Most of them were elderly or extremely young. The able-bodied seemed to have been left behind to till the fields but insufficient crops were likely to be grown to support whole families. Within five minutes of our arrival an old man died at our feet. This was the pattern that seemed to be continuing for a long time to come.
Since that visit in November 1984 the political problems within Ethiopia have not improved. It is common knowledge that the Ethiopian Government have been giving assistance to the civil war in the south of Sudan. That civil war, combined with the burden imposed upon the already tottering economy of Sudan, led to the downfall of President Numeiri and the installation of the interim provisional Government in Khartoum. Unfortunately, a political solution has still not been found for the civil war in the south of Sudan in spite of the mediatory efforts made by the new authorities in Khartoum. This is sad and tragic because as a consequence of the continued conflict there are more refugees and there is a continuing relief problem in the south of the country.
In neighbouring Chad the problem is not much better. The climate has taken its toll and the famine has been severe. The news reports from Paris suggest that the Libyan-backed parties in the north are massing their forces again and the Government in N'Djamena are worried lest civil war should break out once more. At the beginning of the refugee movement from Chad into the western part of Sudan a good proportion of the refugees were driven out because of the civil war in Chad.
At the other side of Ethiopia, in the eastern part of the Horn of Africa, there is a continuing difficulty in that self-determination for the Somali people within Ethiopia has not been possible. Some 700,000 Somali refugees were driven out of the Ogaden region. To this day the Ethiopian air force conducts raids across the border and attacks villages in Somalia. That makes it harder to repatriate Ethiopian refugees.
There are serious political problems throughout the whole of the Horn of Africa, which is one of the most impoverished parts of the continent, and I bring those problems to the attention of the House. It is against that troubled and disturbed background that I ask the House to look at Her Majesty's Government's relief efforts and aid programme. It is sad that our gross bilateral aid to Somalia has declined over the past five years. In 1980 total financial aid and technical co-operation was £2·8 million. The figure has moved steadily downwards since that time and is now £2·1 million. There is a similar tale in British

gross bilateral aid to Sudan. In 1981 the figure was £32·7 million, rising to a peak of £39·4 million in 1982. The figure for 1984, which is the most recent figure available, is down to £27·4 million. Those two countries, as I explained, have been adversely affected not only by the drought, which has affected the whole of that belt of Africa, but by a huge influx of refugees from Ethiopia.
However, when I look at Her Majesty's Government's aid to Ethiopia it is interesting to note that in 1980 gross bilateral aid to Ethiopia was £1·9 million and rose steadily to £7 million in 1984. I understand that in the exceptional circumstances of the drought Her Majesty's Government have had to take exceptional relief measures, and that is to their credit. Since October 1984 the British Government have disbursed no less than £36·84 million to Sudan. In 1984 they gave £25·84 million and in 1985 £36·34 million for the relief of famine in Ethiopia. That is welcome and good, but we must be realistic.
I am deeply shocked when I read reports in the papers that the Government in Addis Ababa have just banned from Ethiopia the admirable team of French doctors—Médecins Sans Frontières—who have been doing wonderful work not least in the provinces most wracked by civil war, of Eritrea, Tigre and Wollo. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister, who knows and has visited Ethiopia, to discuss with his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary whether pressure could be put on the Ethiopian authorities to conduct themselves in a normal, civilised and humane way.
Furthermore, it must be stated loud and clear and unambiguously that the forced transfer of populations, usually by Soviet air force aircraft or, if not, Aeroflot aircraft, from Eritrea and Tigre to the southern provinces of Ethiopia does no good for the relief of famine. Those people are herded on to the aircraft. I have heard it alleged that Royal Air Force crews at one side of an airport will be preparing their relief sorties and relief missions while at the other side of the same airport Soviet personnel arid their Ethiopian brethren are herding hapless farmers and rural populations on to aircraft to be transferred to a strange and alien part of Ethiopia. That is intolerable. The Ethiopian Government have been using famine as a weapon of war against what they regard as the dissident populations of Eritrea and Tigre, who are seeking no more than the process of self-determination for themselves arid a chance for autonomy in their provinces.

Mr. Tony Baldry: There is a danger that my hon. Friend may unwittingly give an alibi to those who would wish Britain to cut our overseas aid altogether on the basis that if the countries of Africa cannot sort themselves out, why should we assist them? I wish to draw to my hon. Friend's attention a letter sent by the assistant secretary-general, based in Addis Ababa, to the editor of The Times in August this year. He said:
There is a complete consensus here among representatives of donor countries and voluntary organisations that the Relief and Rehabilitation Commission is doing its utmost to distribute whatever grain has been consigned to it.
The letter said that the United Nations thought that the Ethiopian Government were doing their bit to combat famine and not using it as an instrument of war, although the civil war must be brought to an end. However, it has not been used consciously as an instrument of war.

Mr. Wilkinson: I did not realise that my hon. Friend would read a handout in his intervention. If I had, I would not have let him intervene.
I led the House's delegation to the General Assembly of the United Nations in October. During that visit we were briefed by Mr. Bradford Morse, who heads the United Nations development programme and who has also been responsible for the United Nations emergency programme for Africa. That programme's document of 1 September 1985 reports an increase in child malnutrition in southern Tigre and says that there is particular concern for the health of orphans, destitutes and old people remaining in the camps. It lays particular stress on the work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Ethiopia for the returnees coming back from Sudan and Somalia, and the United Nations reminds us that next year, too, there will still be a major requirement for emergency food aid.
In no part of my speech did I deprecate in any way our efforts to alleviate suffering and help people suffering from famine in Ethiopia and the neighbouring states. I stated that war and the unscrupulous activities of the Ethiopian Government have made the relief operations much harder than they need have been. It is a scandal and a tragedy, but it had to be exposed. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to do SO.

Mr. Stuart Holland: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) and members of his Committee on their outstanding report. I agree with his submission today that the famine disaster in Africa could have been avoided. The key question now is whether, jointly, we can contribute to avoiding its recurrence. To understand that and learn the lessons from the famine, we do not need a crystal ball.
Unfortunately, the future is already visible in the trend of food production in Africa. For example, from 1970 to the early 1980s in the industrial countries as a whole, as we would expect, food production per head was positive at 1·6 per cent. a year and for developing countries as a whole it was positive at 0·9 per cent. a year, but for Africa it was negative. In the west African countries as a whole it was -0·8 per cent. and in east Africa it was -2·2 per cent. If we look at the long-term trends, we see that from 1961 to 1970, less than six out of 24 African countries vulnerable to a food crisis registered a negative growth or a fall-back in per capita food production, but from 1971 to 1984 only six out of those 24 countries achieved a positive growth of food production per head.
I might come to the same conclusion as the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), from a different perspective, about the extent to which certain Governments seem more content to wage war within their own frontiers than to wage war on drought. None the less, even before the recent famine, and since the last major famine in 1974–75, agricultural output per head in Africa has been declining irrespective of drought or wars. That is the underlying issue to which I should like to address myself.
The hon. Member for Stroud, with good reason, drew attention to the fact that while drought self-evidently relates to climatic factors and causes famine, famine affects the poorest sections of the population. Therefore, if we urge the Government to take those measures in their

aid programme which will help to avoid rather than simply remedy the effects of dought, the underlying structural problem of poverty should be addressed.
Much work has been done on that by Professor Amartya Sen who is now at the University of Oxford. I am glad to say that much attention also is now being paid to that, not by the economists in the economic research division of the World Bank, who seem to have seen the market work in south-east Asia and have been converted to market forces, but in the international division of the bank, especially by the head of that division, Shahid Javed Burki. Such stress on underlying structural poverty in the African countries can make a major contribution not only to our debate but to the kinds of policies which we should adopt and which we should urge the Government to adopt.
For example, Shahid Javed Burki has drawn attention to the fact that if the very poor are defined as those who ordinarily do not have enough income to obtain sufficient calories for adequate growth or health, against a worldwide increase of that category of up to an estimated 400 million people in 1985, the share of sub-Saharan Africa in that total has risen from 20 per cent., or 60 million people, in 1970, to nearly 40 per cent., or 150 million people, in 1985. In other words, in 1985 nearly half the population of sub-Saharan Africa belongs to the category of very poor—the people who are exceptionally vulnerable to famine when it occurs.
If the House is to address itself to the recommendations to be made to the Government on their aid programme and spending, we must understand that the consequences of famine will be irreversible unless there are sustained policies for intervention in agricultural production and in regional and rural development.
The first effect of famine was identified by the Royal Commission established on the famines in India earlier this century. It might well be called the shoe horn effect. In other words, it has been found that small farmers leave the land during famine and in that phase they almost certainly liquidate the small assets that they have, certainly their herds.
The second phase is that in which such former farmers seek farm employment hundreds of miles from their former grazing or plot areas. Therefore, they become casual labourers often driven into degradation, and too often the women are driven into prostitution.
The third phase is more critical, when depopulation sets in. Entire villages—whole rural communities—abandon the land in search of food. There is a simple logic about that. It swells the urban population while reducing rural farming. The result is less food for more people off the land and a combined rural and urban crisis.
What is needed to cope with the underlying structural problems of rural migration and urban poverty? First, higher food prices alone—I stress "alone"—are not the answer. For one thing, with depopulation and the reduction of the working population in agriculture—and of the land under cultivation—higher prices alone would simply aggravate inflation and shift the price of food further out of reach of the new urban poor. Even lower prices, such as are now registered in many of the African countries following recent rains—a point stressed in a recent article in the New Scientist—give no long-term incentive to migrants during the recent famine to return to the land. The price mechanism alone is not enough to


achieve, and certainly not enough to guarantee, a return to the rural areas of those who have come off the land during famine.
Secondly, as is illustrated in the Harare declaration to which some hon. Members referred, we need policies which make possible a better balance between cash crops for export and food for domestic production. The hazards of cash crops for export have been well known for some time and have been often criticised. We know why local Governments pursue that policy. They need the foreign exchange to finance imports, often not only imports of fuel but also agricultural imports such as seeds, fertilisers and agricultural equipment, including spares.
A third major corollary directly links the need for agricultural development to offset famine and the problem of debt. This has been stressed before in the House but we have not had adequate answers from the Minister. We appreciate that the Minister and the Overseas Development Administration have written off some of the loans to less developed countries and converted them to grants, and we are glad about that. But that still leaves us with the crippling problem with which Sudan was faced last year.
Although the Minister was able to give tens of millions of pounds in grants and assistance to Sudan, its total debt last year was $8,000 million. That resulted in the absurd situation that, when Secretary of State Shultz came to the Sudan to see the crisis and what the US agencies were doing, it is reported with some authority that several Ministers were able to drive to the airport to meet him but their staff had to return by public transport because they could not afford to drive back into town. Many of the British public have seen on television the Geldof convoys from the remarkable Live Aid and Band Aid initiatives overtaking convoys that have been stranded in the Sudan through lack of fuel. That is a crucial factor in the aid programme. Aid alone for agricultural equipment is not enough. Even if we were to see an increase in the aid budget, that would not be enough if the debt problem were not tackled.
In that context we urge the Government—especially with the kind of change in the United States Government's attitude which we see from Mr. Baker and which we welcome in terms of increased proposals for World Bank lending—to get together with the Governments of the United States, Germany and other EC countries to fund the long-term debt, reschedule it, and, where necessary, write off the long-term debt of the least developed countries and certainly the sub-Saharan African countries. The official estimate of their debt at $80 billion is, if anything, likely to be an under-estimate. It has recently been reckoned that it is under-estimated by 50 per cent. Any increase in the aid contribution, even if achieved, has to be seen in that debt context.
Zambia is in a straitjacket of debt. It is 95 per cent. dependent for its export earnings on one commodity—copper. With falling copper prices and the rise in fuel prices it is being crucified by long-term debt. Even with the floating of the kwacha, even seeking market solutions in the foreign exchange market, one cannot find adequate sacks to store the new food and the food surplus which in certain products has become available in recent months in Zambia.
Fourthly, the repopulation of rural areas and a longterm stable price structure means the need for intervention in agriculture and in regional development programmes

rather than simply market forces. Those in the World Bank, the IMF and the Government who advocate a fuller flourish of market forces neglect the fact that no developed country has ever subjected its agriculture to the rigours of market forces in this century in the way that the World Bank and certain others are advocating for the African countries. The United States, Britain, with its previous deficiency payment system, and the EEC, with its common agricultural policy, would not dream of letting market forces rip with the consequent decimation of agricultural production in the manner in which certain people are advocating simply a market forces solution for African agriculture.
Of course, the market has an appropriate role to play. Of course, there are key issues of appropriate prices to producers. Certainly no Labour Member would argue that the African countries need a common agricultural policy of the kind that we now find in the EEC with its vast surpluses. But the African countries do need donors to work jointly with them to secure policies for incentives, assistance, grants and technical support for agriculture that go beyond the vagaries of market supply and demand and can assure a long-term future for agriculture.

Mr. Ian Grist: Does the hon. Gentleman accept, from those who may know Africa a little better, that if European farmers can produce surpluses from overpriced food, the introduction of prices that the market could fetch would find African fanners producing food just as well?

Mr. Holland: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by those who know Africa a little better. He is not addressing himself to my main point. In the depopulated rural areas in sub-Saharan countries there is an outward migration of population to other countries—for example, Eritrea, Tigré, and Sudan. There is massive urbanisation. The market mechanism alone cannot provide sufficient incentives, from just one of two good annual harvests, to attract population back to the rural areas and to deserted and desolated villages.
I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's point about price support. Of course, price support is an appropriate policy. However, a price mechanism alone will not ensure that those who have come off the land, joined the rural poor and are contributing to the urban population explosion will have the courage to return to the land when they lack capital, basic machinery and credit for further agricultural investment.
Fifthly, in any programme priority must be given to the needs of those who produce the most, but are paid the least. In Africa, that certainly applies to women. In east Africa, women work an average of 40 per cent. more than men, but are paid 60 per cent. less.
The Lomé agreement recommends that we should give credit where credit is due—that is to women and to women's co-operatives—rather than simply increase revenue through higher prices paid to male heads of households. It is clear that certain African Governments are willing to support and encourage that, and I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments. Otherwise, increased revenue from higher prices, or even a price support policy, will not go to those who have a vested interest in reinvesting in agriculture.
Sixthly, the role of technical assistance has two dimensions, and that issue has been raised many times in


the House. One dimension is water-based technical assistance, copper dams, pumps, wells and so on. The second dimension is seed-based assistance including both dry soils and tropical seed research. This House should admit that the Government's record is deplorable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has said several times, the Government have cut assistance to the Tropical Development Research Institute in London.
There is no aspect of that six-point agenda for action in sub-Saharan Africa where the Government are taking a lead rather than following the laissez-faire remedies favoured by the United States Administration.
During Question Time last month, the Prime Minister claimed that the United Kingdom aid contribution was in line with the OECD average. I pointed out that in terms of aid per head per OECD donor country, Britain is twelfth on the list. Indeed, our aid as itemised in the Chancellor's autumn statement will not mean an increasein—or even a defence of in real terms—the current spending levels up to 1987. The probable inflation rate is likely to mean a net decrease in aid as a share of United Kingdom GDP by a further 1 per cent. or even 2 per cent. down to 32 per cent. or 31 per cent. of GDP by 1987.
What is happening with rural development assistance? United Kingdom Government aid allocations for rural development have declined from £10 million in 1980 to less than £0·2 million in 1984. That is a derisory 2,000th part of 1 per cent. of the total United Kingdom aid budget. Will the Minister make a dramatic statement today, perhaps saying that he will double, treble, quadruple, or multiply by 10 times the amount spent on the rural development programme? Even were he to multiply it by 10 times, it would still be only 2 per cent. of the total United Kingdom aid budget. If the Minister cannot show that sort of commitment to longer-term rural development, we cannot take seriously the Government's commitment to these issues.
Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw), spoke of the reshuffling of the aid budget so that the emergency food aid programme of £90 million to £95 million spent on famine relief came from other items of the budget. The net contribution of up to £9 million for the Hercules had to come from a magnificent effort by the Ministry of Defence rather than from the ODA.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood that many hon. Members heard on the ITN news today about the ending of the RAF's remarkable air lift, which recently has been accompanied by a new aerial assault in Eritrea by the Dergue, who have bombed women and children, hospitals and resettlement camps, and who have waged war on civilian populations—taking lives when the remainder of the world are attempting to save those lives.
The tragedy in Ethiopia is substantially of the Dergue's own making. But for the longer-term tragedy in sub-Saharan Africa, unless the Minister tells us today that despite the opaque nature of the Estimates there will be an increase in the aid budget, a triple indictment must be made—first, that the Government were warned of the coming famine but did not respond soon enough; secondly, that during the famine the Government robbed Peter to aid Paul, rescheduling aid rather than mobilizing

new aid resources; and, thirdly, that the Government appear to have learnt next to nothing about the underlying, long-term causes of the famine and have taken no clear steps to help avoid its recurrence.
The Government should have shifted new resources to respond to the famine, rather than reshuffle the aid budget. To recover from the famine, the Government—jointly with other countries—need to reschedule the debt of the sub-Saharan countries, to help restructure rural farming and aid a redistribution of resources towards rural areas. Before the famine, the Government proved themselves deaf to the warnings issued in the House. During the famine they often appeared to be blind to the real issues. Nothing in the current Estimates promises anything better for the future.

Mr. Jim Lester: Before his peroration, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) had made a useful contribution to the debate. Those of us who follow this subject with considerable interest wholly reject his peroration on the Government's actions.
It is a pleasure to speak yet again on this matter in this Session. I spoke in the debate on the Queen's Speech, when hon. Members pointed out to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the projected figures on aid and said how seriously many Conservative Members were awaiting his autumn statement.
We very much welcome the fact that in the autumn statement the aid programme for 1986–87 and 1987–88 has been increased by £47 million. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister played his part in ensuring that increase. It would be churlish of anyone to refuse to recognise the part that he played.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) spoke about the position on the border between Somalia, Ethiopia and Sudan. He also referred to the politics of the issue. With the opportunity to travel the world, we can see the politics of the issue. I, like my hon. Friend, have travelled the famine areas and have taken photographic slides. When one is able to show those slides to schoolchildren and constituents and can share one's experience of what it is like to be in a camp in Darfur, the reaction is, "This is not politics; this is a question of the survival of the people".
I am sure that we all recognise that poverty is the real problem in Africa, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) said. I pay tribute to him as the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. He has led us positively. I am sure that the Committee's work has commended itself to the House.
Things have moved on since the report, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. The hon. Member for Vauxhall referred to the article in the New Scientist entitled "Who will buy the surplus?" Some of us moved quickly to get in touch with my right hon. Friend to discuss that policy. It would clearly be disastrous in a climate-led recovery if surpluses depressed farm prices and we were not able to encourage a fragile economy. My right hon. Friend said:
The United Kingdom has long argued that food aid should, wherever it is practical and cost effective, be purchased in one developing country which has a food surplus and transported to another which has a food deficit. This both encourages local farmers and provides valuable foreign exchange to the vendor country. We are currently arranging just such a 'triangular' transaction under our bilateral food aid programme, with 14,500


tonnes of grain being purchased in Zimbabwe for use as food aid to Mozambique. The European Community also makes use of triangular transactions as part of its very large food aid programme, and the United Kingdom has urged it to do so more frequently.
This shows that, contrary to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Vauxhall, my right hon. Friend the Minister is alert and aware of the changing problems and that he is trying to solve them.
Many of the Select Committee's members were concerned that the warning signals had been evident in the poorer African areas but, when the famine struck, many people were surprised. The United Nations had already warned the developing nations more than 23 times that a famine was developing. The Committee recommended that staff in overseas posts in countries where there was a risk of famine should conduct their own assessments independently of other organisations. My right hon. Friend the Minister wrote to the Committee saying that the arrangements had been made. Officers posted to countries where there is a risk of famine will be briefed on how to interpret the information and guidance notes have been distributed on the assessment of the food situation for the benefit of officers already in those countries. Those are two positive ways in which my right hon. Friend has reacted to the Committee's recommendations.
That makes me all the more sad that my right hon. Friend the Minister has not been able to respond to another point to which attention has been drawn in the Supplementary Estimates the additional funds for famine relief that should have been provided. I am totally unconvinced by the argument that this is slippage and that no long-term development programme has been affected. One need only look at the average of the contingencies fund over the years to defeat that argument. The average has been about £13 million. In 1983 it was £30 million. We spent £80 million in 1984 and £87 million in 1985 on famine relief. If the average contingency reserve is £13 million and we spend the total budget, one cannot sustain the argument that the additional sums have not damaged the long-term development programme.
I am prepared to accept that a specific programme has not been stopped through slippage and that aid for an established programme has not been discontinued. It is obvious that programmes have been delayed and postponed. Had it not been for the famine problems, those programmes would have begun this year or last year. The Government are wrong to sustain that argument. It would be more sensible if they honestly admitted the truth. The Committee said that it was not acceptable that the entire cost of the United Kingdom's response to the crisis should fall on the previously agreed aid budget. We said that the emergency was of such a degree that it had to be regarded as a new situation and that substantial new money had to be provided to help with it. All Committee members stand by that position. It would be better if the Government admitted that that was the case rather than pretended that some strange formulation in the aid budget has produced additional contingency funds without diverting money from projects that would have gone ahead anyway.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to the working party on United Kingdom aid to African agriculture of which I was the chairman. The report was a frank analysis of what we have been doing for African agriculture. The working party decided to be as constructive as possible to analyse those areas in

which long-term development had, or had not, been operating efficiently and the required changes. I am sure that all hon. Members recognise that the fragile climate-led recovery in many parts of Africa is just a hiccup. The rainfall this year has been much lower than the average in previous decades. It would be a mistake to imagine that this year's rain and production levels mean a new pattern. We have been given a window of opportunity to rethink, restate and refinance our aid programme for assistance to African agriculture.
I would very much welcome my right hon. Friend taking up the Committee's suggestion and, early in the new year, making a new policy statement on the Government's stand on their aid programme and the share that will go to the poorest countries.
The working party stated:
We believe that the ODA should maintain a specific long-term development aid programme which is inviolate. It should be equipped with a small provision for emergencies, and when a larger response is needed, this should be funded on the basis of additionality from one Government's contingency reserve and not from departmental funds.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that suggestion and make it part of any future policy statement.
None of us—certainly no one who has been out in a field frequently—pretends that this problem can be easily solved, because we are concerned with the poorest people in poor countries, who are many miles from the population centres, road and rail systems and the means of support that would normally be necessary to sustain life.
It is difficult to maintain schemes in those areas. It is asking a lot of our aid people to spend long periods—frequently longer than six months—in such an environment, especially if they have families, because there is a lack of schools and other facilities. It is difficult also to persuade the nationals of these countries to do so. One might like to think of the bright lights of Khartoum, although I must admit I have yet to find them in my visits. I am sure that the bright lights of Kassala, El Fasser or Nyala are much dimmer. One should not pretend that it is not difficult to establish schemes for the rehabilitation of the peasant farmer and the nomad. Anyone who criticises the aid programme should recognise that. We must work together more positively with proper financing and skilled manpower, whatever its source, to begin schemes. We must recognise that politically the schemes are not popular because they do not produce immediate results.
Having examined carefully the schemes that exist, we found that, instead of looking at three-year or four-year programmes within the lifetime of a Parliament or even a Government, to be successful in areas such as this, one needs to look ahead 15, 20 or even 25 years and to a sustained programme of manpower and support.
All sorts of high-flown ideas are proposed of what is needed to help peasant farmers. We now have examples of what it takes to encourage farmers to produce. For example, in Zimbabwe there has been a remarkable recovery by peasant farmers, and that has come about not by over-elaborate schemes. The farmers there have grown enough to feed the whole population by receiving high-yielding seed, fertilisers at the right time, credit when they needed it and, at the end of the day, a price for their crops that gave them an incentive to grow a surplus and plant for a second year.
I urge the Minister to listen carefully to what is being said in the debate and to note the work that is being achieved by the Foreign Affairs Committee. He can rest


assured that we shall return to this subject time and again, and certainly until we are satisfied that Parliament and the Government reflect the opinions of the members of that Committee and Back Benchers who are interested in these issues.

6·2 pm

Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) made a thoughtful and powerful speech, especially when dealing with the Government's contingency arrangements—or the lack of them—and I am sure that he spoke for hon. Members in all parts of the House when dealing with that issue.
My main purpose in intervening is to refer to the Grindlays address that was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) on 25 September of this year in Jersey, when he made what I consider to have been a major contribution on subjects which are highly relevant to this debate. In that address my right hon. Friend pointed out that the situation in Africa was an enormous tragedy but not an inevitable one. It was not the result of an inability to feed the world's growing population or to fight disease and poverty. It was, rather, a question of meeting Africa's desperate need for assistance.
The size of the problem that we are debating dwarfs the present level of aid, and without a substantial increase in aid the economic challenges that confront the Third world will be insurmountable. We witness the ludicrous situation of net capital and interest payments flowing from the Third world to the west instead of the other way around. Certain African countries have been forced to adopt export policies which place too much emphasis on industrialisation and producing cash crops for export instead of improving farm practices and growing food for local use.
Before we condemn such policies we should attempt to evaluate why they are occurring. Without the revenue and foreign currency that accrues from such exports, countries cannot afford to purchase fertilisers or fuel for the next crop. Nor can they pay the interest on their indebtedness to other countries.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, during a visit to Tanzania, quoted Julius Nyerere as having said that he had to choose in his country between paying his debts and feeding his people. That, alas, is the choice we place before the leaders of many African countries, leaving little hope for them to be able to improve the lot of their people. My right hon. Friend noted when in Tanzania that that country's debt service obligations amounted to more than its foreign exchange earnings for the whole year.
There are, in all of that, implications for the western world, including Britain, in connection with unemployment and the job potential that we seem to be ignoring. Unemployment in the industrialised west represents stagnant development in the Third world and something for them and us which is far from a separate problem. Significant problems affect us all because of the way in which we approach these matters. Indeed, when I think of the problems of the Third world and of the possibilities of job creation which we ignore, I am reminded of the speech, which my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall

(Mr. Holland) will recall, of Mr. Ben Bella at a meeting initiated by the late Frank McElhone in which Ben Bella said:
Your unemployed are our dead.
That is true, and we should be contributing more to the Third world to avoid such a calamity. It is a scandal, as we view the poverty in those countries, that in Britain men, mills and machinery are standing idle.
These problems are intrinsically linked by an economic relationship from which no nation can completely isolate itself. The industrial nations will not gain if there is an increasing wealth gap between them and the developing countries. Their poverty directly affects our welfare, just as our recession limits their development.
One in 20 industrial jobs in Europe and one in six in the United States depends on exports to the Third world. If the people of the Third world cannot afford to buy what we make, unemployment in the industrial west will grow.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth pointed out in his Grindlays address that by the year 2000 world population was expected to be 6·1 billion, three times higher than it was at the turn of this century. In the western industrialised nations, population growth would be relatively low when compared with Africa, though even in the United States there would probably be 20 per cent. more people than there are now, making it a problem, though not such a great one as that faced by African countries, because Africa's population would almost double, from 476 million in 1980 to 877 million by the year 2000.
My right hon. Friend pointed out that those developments were occurring at a time when access to fertile land was decreasing and poverty was on the increase and more Africans were estimated to be under-nourished than was the case a decade ago, with 20 per cent. less food being produced for every African today than was produced in 1960. If present trends continued, by the year 2000 the continent of Africa would need to import 44 per cent. of all its food requirements, but many of the countries so affected would not be able to afford to do so. That is the nature of the problem that the world must prepare for and attempt to defeat. Without improving on present standards, we shall have to produce 30 per cent. more food by the year 2000 just to meet the demands of growing numbers of people. That can be done only if aid is increased and directed to where it is manifestly required.
Every year, massive amounts of arable land revert to infertile desert, over-grazing and poor irrigation techniques, and the large-scale cutting down of forests contribute to the problems that Africa and other countries face. Short-term relief is not enough. The Government have presided over an 18 per cent. cut in their aid and development budgets since 1979. That includes a cut of £40 million this year and represents 3 per cent. in real terms. I am sure that the public, which has been so generous with its contributions, regards those reductions as being utterly repugnant and unacceptable. It is deplorable that the Government should leave the needs of the African people to the mercies of the market.
This year the United Kingdom has donated a record low amount—0·33 per cent. of gross national product—to overseas aid. The Government have not made the slightest attempt to achieve the 0·7 per cent. United Nations target which many other countries, less fortunate than us, have already reached or exceeded. That tells us everything about the Government's aid objectives. [Interruption.] I


agree that the Goverment's policy is nonsense. The 20,000 people who lobbied the House not so long ago showed that they agreed with me. A massive increase in overseas aid positively directed towards meeting human needs and encouraging long-term self-reliance is required. Aid for farmers to reclaim land from the desert and to facilitate the planting of new forests are two possible ways of encouraging the self-reliance that we would welcome for African economies.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth reminded us of how Ernest Bevin seized upon the Marshall plan after the war because he recognised that economic development and human freedom went hand in hand. The process was of benefit not just to the European countries but to the vastly productive economy of the United States. Today, we lack the political will to solve the problem. The price of such folly and the failure to tackle world economic problems in a way that will lead to recovery contribute to falling living standards throughout the world, especially in the poor south.
We should be investigating better ways of bringing recovery and not recession to Africa in particular and the Third world in general. That requires development aid rather than austerity programmes. It is a challenge to us all which has not been answered. We thrive together or decay separately. Bevin and Marshall had the vision to recognise that fact in the 1940s. It is staring us in the face in the 1980s and we ignore it, not so much at our peril but at the peril of millions of starving people whose plight it is possible to avoid.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I agree with much of the analysis made by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) of the position in Africa. There is good and bad news. I wish to speak in a balanced way about the aid budget. We must, therefore, consider the positive as well as the negative side.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has done an extremely good job, which is recognised by most nations, in conducting the aid programme in relation to the famine in Africa. Much of that aid programme has gone through the EEC. I have found, as the House will be aware, much difficulty in obtaining information from my right hon. Friend on what was being done by the EEC with over half the money spent on Africa. I was fortunate enough to go to Brussels and find out much of the information for myself.
One of the gratifying things that I discovered is that my right hon. Friend, almost unknown to the country and the House, contributed not just a Hercules in Ethiopia where the RAF has done such sterling work, but chartered a Hercules in a joint programme organised by the EEC delegate in the Sudan. It was used to carry food from the east of Sudan to the west of Darfur. That was referred to eloquently by my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). The rains had come and lorries could no longer pass across the desert where there are no roads. The refugees from Chad and the Sudanese on the western border of Darfur were starving because the European and American aid could not be transported there despite my right hon. Friend's efforts to have the railway rehabilitated. That was the only alternative way of carrying the grain from east to west.
My right hon. Friend contributed a charter Hercules. The Italians, the French, the Dutch and the Germans also contributed an aeroplane. In that way, the EEC transported the grain and food, including American food aid, to the west. That is a programme and achievement of which we should be proud, and we should congratulate my right hon. Friend on it.
I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on his defence of the aid budget. He managed to see that it was not reduced, as the Government had planned. He has always tried to conduct the aid programme to provide effective and efficient economic assistance to the poorest countries.
I must come to the other side of the story to which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe has referred. I wish to reiterate the points in some detail. They relate to how our efforts in Africa have been funded within the aid budget. The members of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee have been playing a game of blind man's buff with the Overseas Development Administration. We are sometimes faced with a budget which is 30 per cent. unallocated when presented to Parliament. That raises the important point of whether Parliament has any control over the budget. Most of that sum is included in the bilateral programme. The matter becomes important when the Government try to hide behind verbiage such as:
The emergency aid so far provided has not involved cutting"—
we must consider carefully the words used
any planned development activities in the remainder of the aid programme.
That beggars belief, because on the most recent aid statistics published by the Department emergency aid represents £95 million. It is part of the bilateral country programme of £434 million from which much of the aid comes. That means that about 20 per cent. of the budget has been extraordinarily spent without affecting—let me use the words carefully—"any planned development activities."
Before my right hon. Friend says that at least half that sum was spent by the EEC and, therefore, did not come out of the bilateral programme, we will accept that the figure was 10 per cent. Those are huge figures and it is a huge proportion. If that is the case, the House should ask how the aid budget is being planned. What are the long-term development plans which have not been affected? Is it because we are budgeting from month to month that we are not committing the money to the long-term agricultural developments about which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe spoke? Is it that the slippage is so great that we cannot spend it properly on planned long-term developments? We have always spent the complete aid budget, even when there was no emergency or contingency. The aid budget is spent on long-term development objectives when slippage occurs. It is not planned formally because one cannot foresee the events that will take place in a year. The fact that the money is not invested in long-term development is important, and I shall give the House two examples of where it has not been invested.
The money has not been invested in the United Nations development programme. We have cut severely our contribution, which is voluntary and not ratcheted to GDP. The programme undertakes the initial investigation into long-term agricultural projects which may eventually produce an agricultural answer to the famine-struck regions of Africa. Therefore, to argue that we are not


affecting long-term development projects by taking money from other projects is a sleight of hand. It is unworthy of my right hon. Friend the Minister to use that argument, and I hope that we shall persuade him to desist from deploying it. It undermines the credibility of his argument.
I conferred with my friends in the Caribbean about cuts in the aid budget. The Minister went to hear their arguments on 1 August at the request of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. They find that the aid budget is rigid, and that they cannot spend it properly on long-term developments because of the way in which it is presented, and they want a discussion on how that can be improved. The unallocated section is defended, with some justification, by my right hon. Friend the Minister and the ODA because they need flexibility within the budget to take account of the difficulties of disbursing that aid. However, they cannot have a flexible approach from Parliament, and administer aid inflexibly into the host countries in such a way that we do not get economic development but receive a minus quantity of good will from them. There must be something wrong with the administration of our aid if that is the net result. That is also an illustration of the way in which the aid budget is being cut by the diversion of money to famine in Africa. Caribbean countries have certainly suffered because they have not had the additional money which would otherwise be available through the bilateral programme.
It is essential for the credibility of the aid programme that at least £100 million—that is not a large sum, considering the whole sum—is put back into the aid budget as additional money to handle this serious crisis. We should also use it to begin to invest in the research, development, management and technical co-operation necessary to find the way to enable the people of the Sudan, Ethiopia and Chad to sustain their population and cattle in those arid areas. They can succeed in that.
The ODA and the EEC have two excellent research projects in the western Sudanese areas devoted to that. Would it not be a magnificent gesture by the Government to give additional money and resources to enable those programmes to ascertain how we can help other people to help themselves and in that way to help us?

Mr. Eric Deakins: This must be the best informed debate that has ever taken place on foreign affairs in the Chamber, for two reasons. First, never before can such a high proportion of those taking part have visited the countries concerned and, what is more, in the recent past. Therefore, hon. Members are aware of the problems from first hand. Secondly, we have before us two reports and other information.
We have the Select Committee report. Whenever I read a report by the Select Committee I regret that I am no longer a member of it. Perhaps happier days will come, if not before the general election, then after it. We also have the excellent report of the all-party group on the development of African agriculture, which is extremely detailed and well informed. As usual, we have the well-informed mailing from the world development movement, and we have the benefit of a paper prepared by two people—one from Oxfam and the other from Christian Aid—

on food aid and cereal surpluses. The paper also deals with the underlying agricultural problems in sub-Saharan Africa.
In addition, we have the benefit of two further documents. The first is published by the Catholic Institute for International Relations and is entitled "Africa's Development Disaster". The other is a recent lecture given by Robert McNamara, who for a long time was a superb president of the World Bank, entitled
The challenges for Sub-Saharan Africa",
in which he deals with the problems that we are debating today—the famine in Africa, and what should be done about it.
Everyone, including experts and those who have not travelled in that part for some time, agrees that there are several factors in relation to the famine, and hunger and poverty have already been mentioned. They also include the domestic agricultural policies of the African countries concerned, which range from being merely unfortunate to disastrous in terms of raising agricultural production for local people—I am not referring to cash crops for export. Other factors include the decline in recent years in overseas aid for agricultural projects. We should not criticise only the British Government—we have a right to criticise them because the debate is partly about that—but all the other major aid donors to sub-Saharan Africa. They have been reducing their spending on agriculture as a proportion of their total aid to that area. I do not know why, as the signs have been there for a considerable time.
A further factor contributing to the famine is that there has been no effective development strategy for sub-Saharan Africa. One can to a certain extent justifiably blame the World Bank, and to a lesser extent the International Monetary Fund for that. The World Bank is the major multilateral institution for co-ordinating development plans, and for injecting vast sums through the International Development Association. The World Bank must take some criticism, and I hope that those who have access to it in Washington DC and elsewhere and its various executive vice-presidents will heed our remarks.
There is a problem in increasing food production for the immediate consumption of the population of those parts which is extremely technical. I do not wish to bore the House, as the information is available and need not be put on the record. Various matters have gone wrong, including the pricing structure, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) pointed out, has both disadvantages and advantages. There has been no concentration on rain-fed crops, only on other crops. The role of women in agricultural development has been disregarded. The state marketing organisations are often inefficient and do not encourage farmers to produce. When they do produce, they do not always succeed in marketing their produce correctly, either in their own countries, or in the rest of the world.
These are all factors which, while we can deplore, we have to leave to the African Government concerned to put right. At the same time, our aid policy could be much better directed towards increasing African agricultural production for domestic consumption and feeding the growing population. Those factors have been going wrong in the past 20 years of agricultural development in Africa. The experience of successful schemes funded by development projects such as ours should be used as an example and encouragement to African countries and


Governments to get on with the job themselves. I hope that we shall not have to wait too long for African Governments and aid donors to get the agricultural situation right in sub-Saharan Africa.
There are other factors besides agriculture in famine and hunger. One, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), was financial flows to sub-Saharan Africa. Unquestionably, these have been reduced. My hon. Friend pointed out that net capital flows generally to the developing world from the developed world have been falling. In the case of sub-Saharan Africa, they have almost got to a negative stage in net repayments on the interest charges on the debts, which are not large by world standards but are by comparison with the GNP of the country. They are an enormous burden on small countries struggling to prosper and do the best that they can for their people. The burden of debt repayment is more than outweighed by the reducing amount of aid going to those countries. They are becoming net contributors to us in the rich countries. I am talking not about the rest of the world, where there are other problems, but about sub-Saharan countries. The capital is not flowing there but outwards. Donors have, for reasons that escape me—none of the publications from which I shall quote has the answer—reduced aid to this part of the world, even those countries with a much better aid record than ours. That is obviously a problem.

Mr. McNamara: in his lecture on 1 August suggested that a massive injection of funds was needed. That is in line with the Brandt reports, and the recent report with which my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall had much to do called "The Global Challenge". It concerned ways of revitalising the global economy in ways that will help the poor countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa. Mr. McNamara reckoned that all donors should immediately step up their aid by no less than 30 per cent. That does not sound such a large figure. It would be large if applied to our total aid budget, but we are talking only about aid to sub-Saharan Africa. Lest it be forgotten that Mr. McNamara was president of the World Bank, he also had harsh things to say about that institution. He has suggested that it needs to quadruple its investment and lending under IDA and other windows of World Bank lending to sub-Saharan Africa to cope with the problems.
In his lecture, Mr. McNamara had a whole section on population. I was glad that the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw), the Chairman of the Select Committee, mentioned this, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West. We cannot debate the problems of famine in Africa without some passing reference to the population problem. I shall quote from Mr. McNamara's lecture. He said on page 12:
"Sub-Saharan Africa, already the poorest region in the world, now has the highest population growth rate in the world, even exceeding that of the rest of Africa. It is 3·2 per cent. a year. Were that to continue, the population would double in 22 years, quadruple in 44 years, and increase eightfold in 66 years." The year 2025 is not far away and certainly is within the lifetime of all the children in Africa aged up to 12, whom we hope will survive. Mr. McNamara says about that year:
"By the year 2025 … the population of sub-Saharan Africa . . will have risen from 363 million to 1,201 million." That is 1·2 billion people, almost four times the present level.
I was struck by the report "Africa's Development Disasters.' by the Catholic Institute for International Relations. It is no secret that the Catholic Church has fairly

strong views about artificial contraception. A number of hon. Members and I recently went to see Cardinal Hume, the senior Catholic prelate, to express our concern about some of the things that the Pope has been saying both in Africa and Latin America recently. Nevertheless, the CIIR, in its excellent report, had some interesting things to say about population. I regard this almost as the turning of the tide. It says:
"For Africa as a whole, though total income has risen, the greater growth of population meant that by 1983 income per head had declined to 4 per cent. below its 1970 level."
That is, in 13 years, income per head in sub-Saharan Africa had decreased in one of the poorest parts of the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall quoted the following figure in his interesting speech. The report continues:
"In most countries, food consumption per head is now less than it was in 1970…The 24 African countries classified as most seriously affected by drought and famine in the period 1983–85 registered a reduction in grain production per person of around 2 per cent. a year between 1970 and 1984…With an overall rate of population growth of 3 per cent. per year, Africa will have a population of 1,100 millions by the year 2010. This means that Africa will have to achieve a rate of economic growth of 3 per cent. a year just to stand still. Clearly, if Africa's economic decline continues it is difficult to see how such a population can be sustained."
I welcome those comments from the CIIR, because they show, for the first time in any Catholic publication that I have seen, a recognition of the damage caused by too fast rises in population when food supply is not organised and is deteriorating fast.
One of the lessons of this well-informed debate Is that we have to take account, as I hope that the ODA and the Minister will, of the need not merely to consider increases in total aid, and within that increases in the amount of aid going to proper agricultural projects that will ensure that food is available to the poorest people, but of the ecological conditions. Some of the agricultural projects previously encouraged by the development agencies have been an ecological disaster.
There is much to do in terms not merely of increasing aid to agriculture but of ensuring that when we talk to these Governments we point out to them that one of the ways in which they can help themselves, apart from putting their own house in order both agriculturally and administratively, is to do something positive about tackling their growing population problem.
What worries me more than anything else is that eventually, as famine inexorably follows famine—if not next year but the year after that and the year after that because of population pressures and ecological degradation in this part of Africa—people in the rich countries will wake up and say, "Just a moment; we are being asked to give more and more aid just so that we can save people from starvation. We are not doing anything to increase the prosperity of these countries by improving their rate of economic growth." I am sure that all hon. Members wish that to be avoided. As one of the major donors, with great experience in this part of Africa, there is a great task ahead of Britain to show what can be achieved by the policies that we adopt. I hope that this debate will help to achieve that aim.

Mr. Ian Grist: The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) referred to qualifications for


speaking in this debate. I base mine on the fact that after leaving university my first two jobs took me to Africa: to the rain forests, about which great appeals are now being made, to the great grasslands of the Cameroons and to the sub-Sahelian near deserts of Chad and northern Nigeria. Therefore, I have a little experience of these areas. The love of my life has been to follow African affairs, but what a sad story it has been for so long.
I concur entirely with the hon. Member for Walthamstow's fears about overpopulation. When I first went to Nigeria the population was estimated in the last census that was taken in 1972—because everything from idiotic administration to fears and jealousies has prevented any other since then—to be 40 million. It is thought that the population is now 90 million, give or take 20 million either way. By the turn of the century it will be 150 million and it is estimated that eventually it will steady at 500 million to 600 million. A more dangerous scenario I cannot paint.
A country of the size and power of Nigeria with that kind of population is likely to be a danger to its neighbours, as on occasion it has already proved to be. I am referring not to colonies but to the mismanaged economies of independent countries. It was in independent, not dependent, Africa that food production fell. There has been corruption on an almost unimaginable and unexampled scale.
If one wants an explanation of why some aid projects have failed, it is because the host countries did not believe in helping the peasantry and in producing food for themselves. They believed in the crackpot idea of industrialisation and urbanisation. They thought that this was the way to create a modern society. They did not believe that one could have a modern, rural society. Many people fail to understand that the United States is one of the biggest primary producers in the world and that it is also the greatest industrial nation. I believe that it was the London School of Economics that encouraged this chaotic idea. It resulted in subsidised food for the urban masses. The subsidies have failed because of failing economies. Consequently, starvation has broken out in the towns too. There have been wars, civil wars and coups. The record is catastrophic.
I do not know how many hon. Members read the article by Professor Michael Beenstock that was published in The Times on 31 October 1985. It is headed "Drought compounded by folly." He said:
Government policies of keeping agricultural prices at artificially low levels have reduced smallholder incentives to produce basic foods. So there have been food valleys rather than mountains and shortages rather than plenty. Sahelian Governments have operated this inverted policy in the hope that it would keep the relatively well-off population happy with cheap food from the countryside. As a result, the farmers have hardly had the capacity to cope with normal weather conditions, let alone drought.
At the end of his article Professor Beenstock said:
Charity should begin at home: Sahelian Governments should give agriculture a chance. Aid from Western governments will most probably do little more than support the current official impoverishment of agriculture. Instead of marching on Westminster to demand more aid we should be marching on the Sahelian embassies, calling for the removal of anti-agricultural and pro-industrial biases in their policies.
That is the truth of the matter and that is the aspect of African life that the Overseas Development Administration has to face.
That has been recognised by many Africans themselves. There was an excellent article in the magazine West Africa that looked at 25 years of Nigerian independence. It was written by Nnamdi Anyadike. He Said:
the 'urban-based' development that characterised Nigerian's investment patterns led to a gradual deterioration in the quality of life in rural areas, forcing the most able-bodied to decamp to the towns. Those who were left, usually the elderly, less educated or those otherwise unable to leave the villages, could hardly keep pace with production to feed the expanding population in the towns. This exodus to the cities became a stampede when oil started to overtake agriculture as the mainstay of the country's economy.
All hon. Members know what has happened because of the value of oil during the last few years. Mr. Anyadike gave an instance of what happened to production between 1970 and 1982. He said:
Cocoa has declined by 43 per cent., rubber by 29 per cent., cotton by 65 per cent. and ground nuts by 64 per cent.
Hon. Members can probably remember the photographs, taken before the first world war, that illustrated our geography books of gentlemen standing in front of mountains of ground nuts in Nigeria. But Nigeria has begun to import ground nuts. As for palm oil, upon which Unilever was based, and also Lord Leverhulme, Mr. Anyadike said:
Nigeria moved from being the world's largest exporter to being a net importer, primarily from Malaysia.
Malaysia is another Third world country that has got its act together better. There is a moral for Africa if it looks at the far east.
Which countries in west Africa have not been affected in this way? The Ivory Coast contains three times the number of Frenchmen that were there at independence, and it has come to terms with the International Monetary Fund. It does not suffer from starvation. It feeds its people.
The Cameroons was the host to thousands of refugees from the civil war in Chad. Nobody heard very much about that problem because the Cameroons could feed those refugees. That country grew and still grows its own food. In President Ahidjo the Cameroons had a person who came from the countryside and who wanted to promote the welfare of small farmers. Therefore, the small farmers of the Cameroons always received a reasonable price, and they were encouraged thereby. Marketing arrangements were established for small farmers. Roads were built and the farmers were able to produce food for the people of the Cameroons and also for the displaced people of other countries.
Aid must, of course, be continued for cash crops. I remember how welcome it was in the grasslands of the Cameroons when the villagers found that they could grow coffee. They also found that the coffee plants brought in cash with which they could pay for water supplies. They found that by having a cash crop they could help themselves. It is not right to decry cash crops, particularly when they become the mainstay of a country like Ghana which, when it was the Gold Coast, was the greatest producer of cocoa in the world. However, its production has slumped and the Ivory Coast next door, aided by smuggled cocoa from the lower paid Ghanaian farmers, is now the greatest producer of cocoa.

Mr. Stuart Holland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Grist: No, not at this stage.
We ought to provide assistance for power stations. We have provided such assistance to the Sudan. The people in those countries deserve electrical power, if only to provide power for their hospitals. If one goes into hospital in Lagos, the power, because of Nigeria's economy, may be turned off.
These people live in modern states. They need roads and vehicles with which to transport food. Ought we to provide aid to transport food around a modern country? Ought not the roads to be in place and the vehicles to be there? Should not the appropriate skills be there, too, so that when vehicles break down they can be repaired? Should not there be money from cash crops, be they cotton or cocoa, to buy the tyres with which to keep vehicles on the road? Is not that the better kind of aid? Is it not better to try to promote skills and to ensure that these countries understand what is needed? They must be helped to understand that they must help their farmers to help themselves and their countries. My hon. Friend the member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) referred to the bright lights of Khartoum. One thinks of the old saying:
"How do you keep them down on the farm Now that they've seen Paree?"
One has to ensure that the villages provide sufficient attractions to keep people in the countryside. Provided that farmers in rural countries receive a fair price, they will produce food themselves, just as the European Community farmers, or farmers anywhere else in the world, can nose out a profit and go for it.
The Chinese have discovered that moral. Since the Chinese peasants were given a price incentive to aim for, China's food production has rocketed in the past five years. Precisely the same is beginning to happen in Africa. Drought was a terrible disaster, but it was exacerbated ten times by the policies which the African Governments have put into place. Heaven help the African Governments if they have not learnt that, although the West can do much to help them, they must have sensible policies and not those which have led to the creation of urban masses, Mercedes cars and other forms of corruption. Their policies have not helped the Africans, the people that I came to know in the villages and countryside so well and whose welfare I hold deeply at heart.

Mr. Guy Barnett: Like the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), I have lived and worked in Africa. Unfortunately, in view of his speech, that is about all I share with him.
It is too easy to assume that all the mistakes that have been made in the African continent are the responsibility of Africans and that the West and the East—the rich world—have no responsibility for Africa.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central was correct when he said that after independence serious mistakes were made. Sometimes these mistakes were made with the full encouragement of the West and some of them were as disastrous as the hon. Gentleman has described. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind—and I am sure that he knows this from his own experience—that we handed over power to one African Government after another but did not hand over the administrative training that was necessary to run the African economies.
I was a teacher in Africa and I remember the speed with which my pupils rocketed to the top of the civil service

because they happened to be in just the right generation to do so. My pupils found themselves taking on enormous responsibilities in the civil service, in parastatals and other institutions where they had very little experience of running such enormous organisations or carrying out the required administrative work.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central referred to the attraction of bright lights, but he must know that that attraction was already a serious factor during the colonial period. I recall the mounting problem in the back streets, in the slum areas and the shanty towns on the outside of cities such as Nairobi that arose because of the attraction of urban life.
On previous occasions, I have said that in many ways the West has all too readily given the impression that the answer to Africa's problems was industrialisation and the urban community. The West may not have stated that explicitly at times, but by our actions we have given the impression that that is the case.
The West often blames African Governments for failing to take sufficient notice of their remoter areas. I remember visiting the Ghanaian Ministry of Education and one of the officials asked where I had been. When I told him that I had been to Tamale in northern Ghana, he was amazed. He was even more amazed when I told him that I had actually been as far as Bolgatanga. He said that he had never been to Bolgatanga and he never expected to go there.
It is all very well for the West to be critical of the Africans in that respect. It so happens that I have been neither to Lands End nor John O'Groats. It is, therefore, not surprising to find officials in the civil service in Accra or in any other capital in the world who have not travelled the length and breadth of their countries. It would be relatively easy for me to get to Lands End, John O'Groats or other remoter parts of the United Kingdom, but the areas that we are now discussing are so remote that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to grow cash crops.
Many of the West's aid policies have been aimed at encouraging Africans to develop cash crops which the Africans felt they needed in order to deal with their worsening economic circumstances. The Africans hoped that such aid would help them to produce more and more coffee, tea, cocoa and other crops. The world prices of those commodities often fell and they had to increase production in order to balance their payments and to import machinery and equipment from the industrialised world. In many respects the West has forced those problems on Africa. Much of our aid programme has been successfully directed towards the production of cash crops.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) is not being entirely fair when he blames the colonial powers for not having trained the colonial territories before their departure. I recall hardly any protests from either side of the House about our not staying long enough in the colonial territories. Nor was it suggested that it was not right to leave until adequate training had been given. No one protested about that at the time. It was the fashion to get out, and get out we did.

Mr. Barnett: I do not claim for a moment that we should have remained in the colonial territories longer than we did. The political circumstances were such that we could not. Perhaps we should have foreseen the need for Africanisation of the civil service long before we did. In


[Mr. Barnett]
India we at least handed over responsibility to a Government where there was a measure of experience in the states and in the government of India itself, but I could quote case after case in African countries where such skills were not present.
Recently the British Council has made possible the training of Kenyan district commissioners in this country. The council is providing the training needed to raise standards of district administration in Kenya.
There is no doubt, however, that we should have foreseen the need for that training and the handing over of responsibility. We should have been more capable of predicting the probable dates of independence. Indeed, the Colonial Office told a colleague of mine shortly after the war ended that the probability was that no African country would become independent until the end of this century. That was the accepted wisdom of the Colonial Office.
There has been an over-concentration on cash crops, often in the areas that are well endowed with good soil, good rainfall and good climate. One exciting aspect to arise from the tragedies in Africa is the realisation that has been expressed over and over again in the debate of the need to concentrate on the remote, semi-arid areas. That need is becoming increasingly apparent both to the African Governments and to the West.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and others referred to the great increase in public interest in overseas development. I should like to mention one interesting figure. When the Brent lobby took place in 1981, everyone was astonished that 10,000 people should lobby the House of Commons on behalf of people other than themselves. The lobby that took place in October consisted of twice that number. That is another example of the enormous growth in interest.
I believe unquestionably that the reason for the growth in interest is that people have been affected by the appalling pictures of the famine in Sudan and Ethiopia that they witnessed on their television sets. But there was something more than a quantitative increase in people's interest. For many years people were concerned about the effect of famine, and their natural reaction was, "We must feed that child and that family". But there is now a great realisation among the public of the need for long-term development in the semi-arid areas.
Mention has already been made of the report "UK Aid to African Agriculture". I was a member of that working party, which was chaired by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester). I wish to refer to only one part of it, because it is relevant to our debate. We discovered in our researches that the contribution that Britain makes to agriculture in Africa as a proportion of our aid to that continent is far smaller than it should be, and that our contribution to the semi-arid areas is very poor indeed.
Having quoted figures, the report says:
"It emerges from these figures that there has been little movement on UK aid to African agriculture despite the growing crisis of food production in the region."
We are talking of four countries that we visited. It continues:
"The share of UK bilateral aid directly or indirectly to agriculture varied between 26 per cent. and 35 per cent. of UK aid to Africa allocable by sector, or between 23 per cent. and 29 per cent. of total UK bilateral aid to Africa".
The report then goes on:
"The amounts have decreased in real terms."
That is the first point that must be made. The second is that we have concentrated a large percentage of that aid on the more favoured areas and on cash crops, and we have made very little contribution to the kind of rural development projects in the semi-arid areas that could do most to help the people who are most vulnerable to the possibilities of famine in the future.
It has been said that this area of development is perhaps the most difficult. It is an area in which we shall have to make a contribution over many years before we begin to see the result. But if we are really responding to the mood of this country, that is where we expect the Government to make an increase and to ensure that a larger percentage of their aid is devoted to it. That is what the British electorate wants.
Many African Governments are realising the necessity for that, and, despite the difficulties that might be involved, it is important that we develop in those areas so that in future they become less vulnerable to the possibility of famine and the failure of the rains.

7·4 pm

Mr. Robert Harvey: The House can draw some relief from the fact that the December rains are now coming to ease the famine situation. It can also draw some relief from the fact that emergency European Community and other aid has in the end more than matched the problem. We should congratulate those voluntary organisations that have also helped. The western world rose to the challenge, and the response was magnificent.
However, three things are to be regretted. First, as the Select Committee report points out, in rising to the challenge, the Government found the necessary funds from within the existing aid budget and did not increase the overall provision. If anything justified a one-off emergency increase in funds, it was surely this. We do ourselves no good by appearing to be begrudging and ungenerous when we are not and by failing to understand the importance of aid in securing respect and influence throughout the world.
Secondly, the House should wholeheartedly deplore the attitude of the eastern countries, which throughout the famine provided their allies with generous quantities of arms but no food.
Thirdly, we should recognise that there is a limit to what can be done in the long term to lessen the effects of a disaster which is part natural and climatic and which is due also to agricultural policies practised in Ethiopia by a Government who place a greater premium on killing their own citizens than on saving them.
Another disaster to which other hon. Members have already alluded affects the development of these countries and their future defences against famine. It is man-made, and western Governments bear a responsibility, even though it is a responsibility of accident rather than the conspiracy theory that is so often suggested by the Opposition. I am referring to the debt crisis which is squeezing the life out of Africa and Latin America.
The dimensions of that crisis cannot be exaggerated. For nearly four years, real incomes in those two continents have fallen sharply after two decades of sustained economic expansion. In the shanty towns of the non-Asian Third world, where once there was hope, there is now an average loss of income of about 20 per cent. Malnutrition, infant mortality and crime are on the increase. Where once


income flowed from the richest countries to the poorest, billions are now being shipped the other way. The non-Asian countries are no longer underdeveloped—they are undeveloping.
The reasons for the debt crisis are well documented and go back to the 1979–80 oil price shock which sucked about $600 billion mainly out of developing world economies, but also out of industrialised economies, to swell the coffers of a few oil-producing nations. Those oil producers could not spend the money fast enough and put much of it on short-term deposit with the commercial banks. The commercial banks could not find a home for those funds in the developed world, which was practising very restrictive economic policies, so they sent their loan managers to the Third world to offload money there.
The scale of the in-responsible lending of those days beggars belief. Some of it went on worthwhile projects or to correct balance of payments deficits that were badly interrupted by the oil price shock, but of the $300 billion or so that went into Latin America during that period at least $100 billion went straight out again into foreign bank accounts. In big cities such as Lagos in Nigeria and Santiago in Chile, much of the money went into short-lived property booms. It all came to an end very quickly.
A fair measure of blame must attach to the irresponsibility of the local Governments—most of them unelected—who borrowed the money. But the major western financial institutions that made it all possible also bear a large part of the responsibility, not to mention the western Governments that failed to regulate them. It is at least a consolation that most British banks were so much wiser and more cautious than their American counterparts.
But, setting responsibility to one side, let us consider the way out of this financial holocaust for the Third world. For the West's ill-equipped financial regulatory institutions it has been a holding operation, of sending for the IMF with its prescriptions for putting economies right and of insisting on as many debt and service payments being met as possible. Yet the holding operation may no longer be sustainable and, indeed, may be becoming downright dangerous. The United States may no longer be able to run up the huge trade deficits which have allowed those countries to correct their balance of payments deficit.
The risk of one country engaging in a sudden default or joining other countries in a concerted default have grown. In Peru a president has been elected who has effectively defaulted. For President Alfonsin of Argentina, for the democratic President of Brazil and even for the unelected President of Chile, the instant popularity that may be derived from standing up to the gringo bankers is pretty tempting. Even conservative opinion in those countries now considers that default is preferable to generating larger and larger balance of payments surpluses merely to keep the debt from growing in real terms.
There is a considerable danger that the debt is playing into the hands of extremists in those countries. The debt problem is not easing for those countries in spite of the sacrifices that have been made. After four years of belt tightening the Latin American debt burden has grown from £200 billion to nearly £300 billion.
For Africa, which lacks Latin America's financial muscle, the situation is desperate. Between 1973 and 1983 Africa's debt increased by 22 per cent. per annum which greatly exceeded the growth of output or exports. At the end of 1983 the total debt burden was £58 billion. In

addition, £5 billion was owed to the IMF and short-term debt and arrears amounted to £18 billion. This puts the total debt at £81 billion. Unofficial estimates of the debt range from £107 billion to £150 billion. The growth of the debt has not been matched by an increase in Africa's capacity to pay. Over the past decade all the main debt indicators deteriorated sharply. The debt service ratio increased from 9·2 per cent. to 22 per cent. When payment of short-term debts and arrears of payment to the IMF are included, the debt service ratio exceeded 50 per cent. in Africa. For some countries it exceeds 100 per cent.
In Africa, as in Latin America, very little investment or modernisation is taking place. This can only prolong their recessions, diminish their competitiveness and create the conditions which have allowed famine to spread in Africa. In Africa the foreign exchange reserves have fallen to less than the value of one month's imports. Between 1980 and 1983 the level of new commitments to Africa fell by 45 per cent. Authoritative projections suggest that, even if there is a sustained recovery in OECD growth, Africa cannot expect to see any improvements in living standards over the coming decade and can probably expect to see the situation getting much worse.
In the view of many economists, default in Africa and Latin America would clear the air. Today, with the possibility of default hanging over Latin America and Africa, no banker in his right mind is lending anything other than to ensure that his debts will be repaid. Economists argue that once default takes place Latin America and Africa's growth prospects will be improved as those countries will be relieved of their debt service burden. After defaulting once, out of dire necessity, debtor countries will be concerned to re-establish their creditworthiness and a second default can be ruled out in the medium term.
The present bail-out policies have only served to prolong the uncertainty in the world financial markets. That is unhealthy for all. It makes sense to act before default. All kinds of mechanisms have been suggested. Reference has been made to the Baker plan, and that plan is a step in the right direction. The long-term solution is for the American Government and Governments like the British Government whose banks have some exposure in the Third world to step in with a once-and-for-all cash guarantee for those banks that undertake to write off most of their debts. This would be inflationary, but it would be containable at a time when world inflation is under control. This would, at a stroke, end the world debt uncertainty. It would win the West friends throughout the developing world and undermine extremists. It would allow those countries to resume their development which is beneficial to the world economy.
Such a rescue must not be unconditional. The banks need to be penalised to some extent for the profligacy of their lending and should be required to contribute a percentage of their capital to the write-off. Measures should be taken to ensure that no bank is again permitted to expose itself in sovereign risk lending at past levels. The Governments and central banks should urge commercial banks or possibly development banks to resume lending to the developed world on a more modest scale for projects that guarantee profitability. Governments and central banks, while guaranteeing domestic deposit holders, might consider penalising overseas depositors to a degree that the retention of confidence in the banking system allows. This would get at both the exporters of capital from


[Mr. Robert Harvey]
the Third world and the oil producers whose accumulation of financial surpluses, often at the expense of the developing world, led to the mad spending spree in the first place.
The growing impoverishment of the Third world cannot continue. The poorest third of mankind cannot go on transferring money to the richest in punishment for offences which they should never have been allowed to commit. It has been said that a third of mankind is being crucified on a cross of debt. If the burden proves fatal, the ground will tremble under the feet of the crucifiers. It is time for the western Governments to assume responsibility for the matter, or they risk not just famine but political and economic upheaval which they may not be able to control.

Mr. Reg Freeson: It gives me pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Harvey). What the hon. Gentleman and other Members have said requires some response.
I, like others, have raised some of the issues over previous months and years but we have been—I say this bluntly—fobbed off by replies, not necessarily from the Minister. The replies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my questions on the debt question have not been satisfactory.
We have had a kind of holding operation but it cannot hold much longer. There must be some suggestion from the Government as to their policy and their aims in terms of a fundamental restructuring of the debt problem. If there is a restructuring, achieved by the write-off of debts, it needs to be coupled with a restructuring of the financial institutions and their relationship with the countries in Africa and elsewhere that they have funded. I emphasise the word funded. This will be a difficult and long-term problem to resolve.
Time does not permit me to speculate or explore these matters. I wish to discuss one or two other points to which I have listened with great interest and concern this evening and which I have followed elsewhere on previous occasions. The level of aid has been referred to time and again. Even if we were to reach the United Nations target, that would not be good enough. The Labour Government, of which I was a member, did not do enough either, but the present Government have nearly halved the level of aid. We are entitled to a response on that.
What is to be the level of support, under whatever heading, for agricultural development? I have sat through most of the debate and listened with great interest, but there has been hardly any mention of the relationship between the limited resources going on development aid and the obscenely huge resources going on arms trading and arms programmes. Arms trading is no longer a marginal acivity. It is essential to Britain and is becoming increasingly central to the industrial economies of ever more countries.
Unless we recognise that relationship in moral terms —by heaven, that is good enough—and in economic terms, we are hypocritical if we put our hands on our hearts and say that we really want to resolve the problem of hunger. The problem could be resolved. Unless, however, we are prepared to redirect resources away from arms trading, which increases instability and therefore insecurity and the threat of war, we shall achieve nothing.

The criticism does not lie just with the Soviet Union in Ethiopia—it extends to Britain and other countries in the middle east, Africa and other parts of the world. Unless we are prepared to take on board that economic, political and moral link, we are hypocritical in saying that we want to end hunger.
That is all that I want to say today. I hope that we shall get a genuine response from the Minister to the issues that I have summarised, having listened to most of the debate.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) has widened a fairly wide-ranging debate still further and I cannot guarantee to answer all of the points that he has raised. However, I shall try to cover as much ground as possible in what has been, by general consent, an excellent debate. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) said that it was the best informed debate on a foreign policy subject that he had heard in the House. I do not think that we ought to congratulate ourselves too much, but it can be said quite fairly that it involved people with a great deal of knowledge.
Debates on aid have increased in quality in the past few years. Perhaps the House is matching the growing interest that is to be found among the British public. I have found it interesting to listen to our debates.
I pay tribute to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and especially to its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw). The Committee has served us well with the care with which it has studied these issues. My hon. Friend asked whether our development programme has been lamed by famine—a vivid phrase. He talked a little about the role of the European Community in famine relief and food aid and of the need for agricultural policies which will encourage food production. That was another of the debate's motifs.
My hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and others mentioned resources. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made a passionate plea that commercial considerations should have nothing to do with the aid programme. I could not help noticing that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) popped in a few moments ago. Did he mention the word "Westland"? I wonder whether there is a concerted Liberal party line on these matters.
In paragraphs 12 and 13 of its first report, the Select Committee argues that if the money from slippages had not been spent on famine relief in Africa it would have been spent on development projects and that it is not possible to establish how the ODA's expectation, as opposed to firm plans for the disbursement of the ODA programme, has been altered to allow for this provision of £27·75 million of famine relief in this financial year. It says that much of what we have spent on famine relief would otherwise have been spent on development activities. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud seemed to imply that it would all have been spent on development activities, and talked of £85 million—the spending rate this year—if it had not been for the emergency famine relief operation.
I do not claim that none of the money spent on famine relief might in other circumstances have been spent on longer-term development. I have never claimed that and did not do so in our response to the Select Committee. I said:
Most of our relief aid to famine-affected countries in Africa during the last twelve months has come from allocations already agreed for food aid, for disaster relief and for emergency action under the European Development Fund. None of our long-term development assistance programme has been cut to make room for emergency assistance; there has been unavoidable slippage of expenditure which has enabled some funds to be switched to emergency use.
It might be helpful if I were to say what was available in 1984–85 when we spent £95 million on famine-related operations in Africa. It is easier to take that financial year because it is over and the figures are available. We provided £17 million from the in-year contingency reserve in the aid programme, £15 million from our annual bilateral food aid allocations—we have repeatedly said that emergency food aid should have first call on food aid budgets — £47 million for food aid and famine relief contributed through the EC, £10 million, not £86 million, allocated as a result of unavoidable slippage in other activities in the aid programme and £6 million of additional money from the Ministry of Defence last year towards the cost of the Ethiopian airlift.
It is clear that the great bulk of that money would not have been spent on development if there had been no famine. No bilateral or multilateral programme has been reduced in 1984–85 or this year to make way for emergency assistance. Cuts in planned activities seriously disrupt any attempt to run a long-term development programme and we are anxious to avoid them. By flexible management of the funds available, however, we have succeeded in avoiding cuts and concentrating on greatest needs. In 1984–85, only £10 million of the slippage money could have been expected to go to development work, although not necessarily. Some of the contingency reserve might also have been directed to that area. The essential purpose of the contingency reserve is to deal with emergencies and the unexpected, not with long-term development that clearly requires planning.
Although I acknowledge that some of the money could have gone to development, from the facts it is clear that we have not knocked a huge sum of money off the development programme to provide for famine relief. We have used our resources to best effect. I repeat that the Community is now increasingly, although belatedly, targeting its food aid programme to areas where there is real hunger rather than pursuing the indiscriminate and untargeted food aid policy for which it has been criticised for a long time. We are now making progress.

Mr. Stuart Holland: The Minister is seeking to excuse slippage because it is small, but the House is worried that the aid budget is too small and is concerned about cuts.

Mr. Raison: That is a different point which is open to debate. The Select Committee's charge is that there has been a substantial diversion of funds. I believe that the facts that I have given to the House dispel that accusation.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my right hon. Friend explain whether the £47 million worth of food aid through the EC would have been expended in a year in which there was no famine?

Mr. Raison: Almost all of the sum would have been expended. I shall write to my hon. Friend on the details of that if he wishes. That amount is our share of Community action, of which we pay just under one fifth.
I shall say a few words about the areas of Africa where famine poses the greatest threat. For understood reasons, Britain has concentrated on Ethiopia and the Sudan. That does not imply that other countries do not face and continue to face serious problems, but multilateral institutions and the French, because of their relationship with francophone Africa, have concentrated their efforts in those areas. Britain has contributed an enormous amount to Ethiopia. As the House would wish, I must refer to the marvellous effort, which is ending this week, of the RAF Hercules team in Ethiopia. It returns amid the plaudits of everyone.
Of the 1·3 million tonnes of food aid pledged, more than I million tonnes has been delivered to Ethiopia. The shortage of road transport vehicles that was very bad earlier is now much relieved by the establishment of a new truck fleet under the auspices of the world food programme. Sufficient money has been pledged to cover the operating costs of the new fleet. There has been considerable improvement.
The prospects for 1986 look brighter, but it cannot be said that the famine is over, and further assistance will be needed. The recent Food and Agricultural Organisation's crop assessment mission's first rough estimate of the harvest recently collected is that the total food crop will be about 6·3 million tonnes. That is about 13 per cent. below the normal level in the early 1980s of 7·3 mil lion tonnes. On those estimates, 5·8 million people will continue to face food shortages and about 950,000 tonnes of food aid will still be required for Ethiopia. I cannot give the House details, but the signs are that the required amount will be met by pledges, which have not yet been delivered, from the United States, the European Community and Britain. We must ensure that that happens. The international community is committed to ensuring that that is the case.
It is not possible for us to turn our attention away front the basic food aid programme, but we can consider the next phase of rehabilitation. As I told the House recently, we are providing £2 million for agricultural rehabilitation and £1 million to improve the water supply in Wollo. The EC is also setting up a rehabilitation programme.
There have been and still are great problems in the Sudan. I intend to visit the Sudan shortly after Christmas to see the circumstances myself. I shall not give the House details, but the essence is that there has been a good harvest. However, there will be a problem getting the food from where it is grown to other parts of the country that are in desperate need. I do not need to remind the House of the terrible difficulties that have been experienced in transporting food in the Sudan during the past year, but there are signs of improvement. I assure the House that we are deeply concerned about what happens in that country and we shall do all that we can to help.
The longer-term problem of assistance to basic agriculture has marked the debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned the importance of population policies, which are interwoven with the problem. It is vital to help basic subsistence and peasant agriculture. I have heard some wise words about cash crops. The mania about cash crops that occasionally arises is nonsensical. Cash crops have an important place, but it


[Mr. Raison]
is essential to ensure that the basic agriculture of developing countries is helped. That is a major part of our aid programme. I should like to couple that view with what has been said about debt. I cannot go into much detail, but I shall give a topical instance of the way in which we are doing our best, through the aid programme, to deal with those major problems.
Zambia has had enormous economic difficulties because of its dependence on the copper industry, which is in serious decline. Zambia is faced with severe debt problems but it has great agricultural potential, which is not being fulfilled. A meeting is taking place today in Paris, organised by the World Bank, to tackle Zambia's specific problem. At the meeting, our representatives have undertaken to provide a further £13 million worth of aid for Zambia's requirements during 1986. That sum consists of £8 million from our regular funds and £5 million in association with the World Bank's special facility. Those amounts are grants and we recognise that Zambia is not in a position to undertake new loan obligations. We propose to provide a special grant of £1–5 million to permit the clearance of arrears of payment on aid loans made some time ago, which the Government of Zambia owe the British Government, up to the end of this month. We have pledged almost £30 million to Zambia in six months. I hope that other donors will respond in the same spirit. I believe that other donors will respond in the same spirit. I believe that that shows that the Government can mount a well directed substantial aid programme that will be widely appreciated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Harvey) and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) mentioned the problem of debt. In effect, my hon. Friend and the hon. Member called for the writing off of Africa's debt.

Mr. Stuart Holland: My request concerned at least a major share of the debt of the lesser and least developed sub-Saharan African countries.

Mr. Raison: I accept that. No doubt my hon. Friend would have made a similar qualification. The Government do not believe that that sort of global approach to debt is the right solution. We do not believe that writing off debt in a massive way lays the foundation for a lasting solution to Africa's problems. It could have a dramatic short-term effect, but in our view it would not meet the fundamental needs of Africa. We believe that the debt must be tackled in the light of each country's circumstances and in the context of basic policy reform and adjustment measures.

We believe that this can normally be achieved best in conjunction with support from the IMF and the World Bank.
Debt rescheduling is being faced by the Paris club arrangements. As the record shows, they have proved responsive to the needs of individual countries and seem to be the right approach. We do not believe that the answer lies in global solutions, which inevitably will undermine the confidence of the banking community as a whole. It is no good saying, "What does that matter?", because it is that community which produces the money. It is no good going for a massive global panacea. We must have a realistic policy, and that is what we are pursuing. It must be coupled with the policy reforms which are being recognised increasingly as the essence of what has to be done in Africa.
The House knows that there is a great measure of agreement between the principal donors, both institutional and national, about policy needs, such as pricing policy for agriculture and realistic currency valuation. That is all to the good. Particularly encouraging are the increasing signs of acceptance in African countries that what I have described is that which needs to be done.
Mention has been made of the Harare declaration. I add to that, perhaps to my own surprise, that the communique at the end of the OAU summit meeting in July included some remarks about the development of agriculture in Africa. I do not wish to be patronising, but that seemed to show very good sense. The remarks of the OAU are much in line with the policies that we are advancing. I accept fully the argument of those who say that the problems that must be faced are of enormous size. No one can doubt that, but there is emerging gradually a form of coherent strategy. It is a painful process, but a strategy is emerging. If we have the guts to pursue it and if we can persuade the African Governments to pursue it, there is hope that we shall get somewhere. The Baker plan at Seoul was in line with that, and we have studied it with great care and sympathy.
I believe that the debate has been of real value to the House, especially to myself. I am grateful to all those who have participated in it. I hope that the House will accept that the policies that we are pursuing are those that stand the best chance of working to deal with the grave problem of which we are all aware.
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Question was deferred pursuant to paragraph (2)(c) of Standing Order No. 19 (Consideration of Estimates) and to the resolution [12 December].

Register of Members' Interests

Mr. Speaker: I have selected amendment (b) in the name of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and others, amendment (d) in the name of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and others, amendment (e) in the name of the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and others, and amendment (g) in the name of the right hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams).
I propose that there should be a joint debate on the main Question and on the selected amendments. At 10 o'clock, in accordance with today's business of the House motion, I shall call upon Members to move their amendments formally in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper. When the amendments have been disposed of, I shall put the main Question.
Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, and as it will continue for only a relatively short time I appeal for short contributions.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests in the last Session of Parliament; welcomes the intention of the Committee stated in paragraphs 7 and 9 of the Report to keep under review both Parliamentary lobbying and the appropriate scope of the declaration and registration required of Members who are so engaged; emphasises that it is the personal responsibility of each Member to have regard to his public position and the good name of Parliament in any work he undertakes or any interests he acquires; confirms that the scope of the requirement to register remunerated trades, professions or vocations includes any remunerated activity in the fields of public relations and political and parliamentary advice and consultancy; and in particular agrees with the Select Committee in its statement in paragraph 10 of its Report in regard to the registration and declaring of clients that the services which require such registration and, where appropriate, declaration: 'include as well as any action connected with any proceedings in the House or its Committees, the sponsoring of functions in the Palace, making representations to Ministers, Civil Servants and other Members, accompanying delegations to Ministers and the like.'.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I may be the first to conform with your exhortation for tolerably brief contributions. I believe that the motion is drawn to enable a reasonably wide-ranging debate on Members' interests. I shall deal first with the modest proposals of the Select Committee and then turn to the wider issues. I shall speak very briefly to meet your wishes, Mr. Speaker.
The Select Committee's report made three specific recommendations which the Committee believed would lead to greater openness among those with access to Parliament—for example, Lobby journalists, research assistants and officers of all-party groups. These recommendations are contained in amendment (e) in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and others. The motion does not propose acceptance of these specific proposals, and the reason is straightforward. I think that the major current public interest concerns the interests of Members. Therefore, I do not recommend acceptance of amendment (e). I emphasise that my view is related more to timing and tactics than to the merits of the argument.
I turn to the aspects of the Select Committee's report which relate to Members. The Committee undertook to

keep under review parliamentary lobbying and the appropriate scope of the declaration required of Members engaged in this activity. Furthermore, the Committee set out a clear definition of the type of services which, if performed for individual clients, would require the registration and, where appropriate, declaration of these clients' names. This definition made particular reference to the sponsoring of functions within the Palace, making representations to Ministers, civil servants and other Members, and accompanying delegations to Ministers. This clarification is embodied in the motion. This will make clear what constitutes lobbying activities which are expected to be registered. It will also sustain the register as a support for the formal declaration of interest which has been the means whereby the House has been able to judge these matters in debate over the decades.
Traditionally, proceedings in this place have worked on a basis of trust and honour among Members. The way in which the practice of declaring an interest has developed is a clear sign that declaring and, more recently, registering can work only in an atmosphere of cooperation.
In 1969, the Select Committee on Members' Interests recommended that the requirement to declare one's interests during any proceedings of the House or its Committees, or in any communication with Ministers, other Members and civil servants, should be reinforced by a resolution of the House.
That resolution was passed on 22 March 1974, when a decision in principle was taken that there should be art additional requirement to register. The continuing original requirement to declare as well as to register is a sign that the register is intended to buttress the practice of declaring and not to replace it. Indeed, declaration in debate and in the proceedings of Select Committee work remains central and crucial in enabling the House to assess and evaluate any interest.
Some have argued that the register is vitiated because it is incomplete. The resolution of the House sets out categories of interest that should be registered; but the interpretation is left to individual Members. Given the nature of the register and the assumption on which it is based, I think that this degree of self-regulation is a common sense approach.
On the other hand, a small number of Members have declined to co-operate and to file a return of interests. Hitherto, the House has not attempted to exact any discipline for this disregard of a resolution of the House. I believe that a Member who avowedly disregards a resolution of this House of Commons diminishes his parliamentary stature.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: He has resigned.

Mr. Biffen: Some have suggested that a register might have statutory force. I believe that this proposal encounters the most formidable problems of definition, and would compound rather than ease our difficulties. The House, I think, has been modest but realistic to require declaration and registration within the framework of a resolution of the House.
Of course, I agree that the register has only limited objectives. Even so, I think that it has a valuable role, taken alongside the practice of declaration. That role is clearly enhanced by the full declaration by Members of the


required information, and by the frequent updating of that information. I believe that the Select Committee will continue to pay attention to those matters and to advise and remind Members accordingly. Meanwhile, the House would be well advised to take realistic measures that will add to the authority of the register, and I believe that it has that opportunity this evening.
I wish to refer to the wider issues of interest which properly concern the House.

Mr. Dave Nellist: While we are talking about wider measures, some of us would like to raise the matter of the value of such contacts with outside business interests or with investments being included in the register. Last Thursday I intervened in business questions and asked the Leader of the House whether the Prime Minister would be coming to the debate. I suggested that if she did not attend, it might be because she is more interested in pursuing local authorities such as Liverpool and less interested in pursuing the antics of Lloyd's, because one in eight Tory Members is a member of Lloyd's. The Leader of the House accused me of low-grade McCarthyism when I made that point. I take this opportunity to apologise to him. I had my facts entirely wrong. It is not 47 Tory Members who are members of Lloyd's, but 55. Therefore, one in seven Tory Members is moonlighting in the House when his real interests lie in business outside.

Mr. Biffen: As ever, I appear as an inadequate alternative to the Prime Minister. I can judge only on the extraordinary moderation of my language last Thursday. I shall now continue with the issues of interest that go wider than the register.
Amendment (g) in the name of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) reminds us of those wider considerations. It is 10 years since the matter was debated in the House. Thus, I think it is wholly understandable that the right hon. Gentleman should seek to have further consideration on issues such as the declaration of the financial nature of an interest, and whether an interest should affect the right to vote on public Bills, as well as the declaration of interests during Question Time.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Biffen: Please allow me to go a little further. I shall not detain the House too long, but I should like to place on record my view of the general issues.
Some hon. Members have argued that Members should not be permitted outside interests. I do not share that view. I believe that there is advantage in the House having Members with outside paid interests. I think that it adds to the experience and judgment of the House. However, I also believe that such a tradition of outside interests can proceed only if we have an effective convention of declaration.
I believe that the House is best served by the declaration of interest in the proceedings of the House in the traditional sense covering debate and the work of Select Committees. I believe that it can operate only if there is mutual respect between Members and an acceptance of good faith and propriety. That somewhat traditional view of declaring an

interest has been supplemented with the use of a register. The register should be sustained for its supportive role to declaration.

Mr. Lofthouse: Can a register mean anything if it allows people to get financial gain from a particular company and, providing he registers that gain, can continue to lobby in the House and cast votes? I believe that a person who has vested interests in obtaining financial reward from a company should not be able to vote for that company.

Mr. Biffen: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I said that I would give my own view on that issue and that I would say whether it is appropriate, whatever may be my view, for the matter to be referred to the Select Committee for further consideration.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: rose—

Mr. Biffen: I shall not give way.
In my view, our current convention involving declaration and register strikes a balance between openness in declaring the source of the interest and legitimate privacy by not expecting the Member to declare the financial extent of that interest. It is a balance that has served the House, and I do not favour its disturbance. Furthermore, I take that view not only on account of privacy. I believe that the practical problems of definition would frustrate the objective of recording the financial scale of interests.
However, I recognise the general interest in that question and, having made my own views clear, I am content with amendment (g) in the name of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West, which suggests that the Select Committee should pay particular attention to the amount of remuneration contained in an interest.
The second major problem that arises from the amendment of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West concerns whether interest should limit a Member's ability to vote on a public Bill. It has long been held that interest precluded voting on a private Bill, but there have been no corresponding inhibitions on a public Bill.
Once again, I think it is reasonable to seek the opinions of the Select Committee on the matter and I am certainly content that the House should so decide. None the less, I feel that Members' interests and the ambit of legislation run so wide and are so elastic as to make it near impossible to devise a workable rule in those matters. Even so, as with the amount of a remunerated interest, the House could be misunderstood if it was not prepared to have those broad matters generally and constructively considered by the Select Committee.
I feel that I have said sufficient to open the debate. I conclude by thanking the Select Committee for its report and by asking the House to endorse its helpful recommendations on Members' registration of lobbying interests.
I ask the House to desist, at least for the time being, from extending the register to the lobby and research assistants. I acknowledge that we should refer to the Select Committee the matters of interest and parliamentary questions, of quantified financial interest, and restrictions on voting. The House should be seen to be prepared to have considered all those matters, although I have made my own views clear on their merit and practicability. However, above all, I hope that the debate will assert our


concern that Parliament will continue to be helpfully served by interest and that the existence of interest will be proclaimed in such a manner that hon. Members will properly describe the reality and the forum of the House.

Mr. Alan Williams: I beg to move—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman must have misheard me. He should move his amendment at the end of the debate.

Mr. Williams: I wanted to be sure that we would debate all the individual points. I shall be as quick as possible and I shall forgo any attempt to wind up because I want as many hon. Members as possible from both sides of the House to be able to take part.
We should emphasise that this should essentially be a House of Commons debate, not a party debate.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: indicated assent.

Mr. Williams: The Whip seems to agree.
In making our points, I hope that we shall not make a football of the reputation of the House. I was reminded of that in a rather amusing way by a telephone call that I received yesterday morning from a charming young lady from a television channel that I shall not identify. She asked me what line I would be taking in the debate on behalf of the Opposition. After I had explained, she said that I had been very reasonable but she asked whether I would mind if she interviewed someone else instead.
I accept the conclusion of the Chairman, the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), and his colleagues in the early part of the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests that it would be inappropriate to have an exclusive register of lobbyists, not because we do not want to know who the lobbyists are, but because we would be creating an elite who would gain a commercial advantage from the existence of such a register even if it could be properly defined. The conclusions of the report are well reached and well argued.
I shall deal with the proposals in the report as embedded in the amendment in the name of the Chairman. On the section relating to the lobby and the Press Gallery, I welcome the steps that have already been taken by the lobby through its practice notes to try to ensure that it limits the misuse of information that is available to it. We must bear it in mind that the lobby enjoys early information, often well before hon. Members enjoy it. They enjoy easy access to Ministers, hon. Members and off-record briefings.
For that reason, it does not seem unreasonable to me that we should adopt the recommendation in paragraph 1 of the amendment of the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), which requires the declaration of relevant interests. That is an important point to emphasise. We are asking not for information that is irrelevant, but just for relevant information in relation to lobby journalists' privileged positions.
The amendment also refers to secretaries and researchers. I accept that there are some abuses, although with most secretaries and researchers there is no such allegation from either side of the House. However, I wonder whether the hon. Member for Wealden's amendment goes a little too far. I should welcome his comments. He requires relevance for the lobby journalists,

who have greater privilege and preference in access in the House, but for secretaries and researchers he requires registration of any gainful occupation. I do not think that it matters if the secretary does a little work on a Saturday afternoon, typing for the retailer at the end of the high street. While I am sure that that is not what the hon. Gentleman intended, I suspect that that is what is captured in the amendment. The same applies to the all-party and registered groups. I agree that there should be registration and disclosure, but I wonder why the Committee chose to exclude the use of the word "relevant" in those two cases. The amendment would have been strengthened if relevance had been required in all three categories.
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his support for the amendment in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). It is an attempt to take us a step ahead. We are not attempting to prejudge or predetermine the outcome, but there are areas of key concern that have been voiced on both sides of the House that merit investigation. That is all that we are asking for—that the Committee, on behalf of the House, gathers together all the evidence and brings up to date the recommendations that it would like to put before the House.
The first issue is voting. 1 readily accept that there are problems. For example, what do we do on Second Reading if an hon. Member has a nominal interest in one subsection? Is he debarred from voting on the whole 13111? That difficult issue needs to be looked at. I do not want to go into specific instances, but the difficulty is more acute in the context of a Standing Committee or a Select Committee when there is a relatively small number of votes and people have vested interests. Therefore, we should consider whether in some circumstances we should extend the current restrictions in relation to private legislation. I hope that the hon. Member for Wealden's Committee will take that on board.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I intervene not on the basis of party politics. However, we know that several hon. Members are sponsored by a trade union. It would be absurd if they could not vote on industrial relations legislation or legislation connected with an industry in which they were sponsored. How would the right hon. Gentleman phrase any such legislation or a recommendation to prevent that happening?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to do the very thing that I have tried not to do and asked the House not to do — to prejudge the issue. I accept readily, and have said to my hon. Friends, that if we are not careful, the measure could rebound to the disadvantage of both sides, inappropriately. We need to bear that in mind.
A formula has been suggested for parliamentary questions involving taxable income. That would be for the Committee to look at and it is not for me to give snap judgments on the basis of no evidence or information.

Mr. Terry Lewis: This point should be answered. There is a great difference between a sponsored Member of Parliament who receives nothing through being sponsored by a trade union—the pittance that he is paid goes to the constituency party—and a Member who receives £8,500, which was quoted in a recent television programme. That amount was received by a Conservative Member representing a Channel tunnel company.

Mr. Williams: I am not dissenting from the basis of my hon. Friend's point, but all that he is doing is emphasising the need for the matter to be examined coolly and outside the rather overheated atmosphere of the Chamber. Indirect or non-monetary interests will have to be considered. Benefits in kind need to be taken into account and evaluated. All that we are asking is that the Committee should look at that.
With regard to parliamentary questions, we must bear in mind that a question can attract as much publicity as a speech. A question costs money and can provide rapid access to new information or be an easy way of supplying processed information to the questioner. It is a valuable service for those who have access to it. I float this as an idea. This option might be difficult for supplementaries, but there would be no problem in having a second box on the question form where one puts an "x", as we do when we want a priority written answer, when one submits a question in which one has an interest. When the question appears on the Order Paper, whether it is written or oral, there would be an asterisk showing that an interest has been declared. That would resolve the problem. It is done in the European Assembly, but I hardly dare mention that as an example.
Our amendment also refers to the amount of remuneration. That matter is of particular concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). He wanted to be here but, as the Leader of the House understands, there are unavoidable reasons preventing him from being present. We must recollect that declaration of amounts was rejected in the Select Committee report 10 years ago. We accepted that evidence, but we should look at it again. There have been changes and an expansion in the interests of the House. In the context of the study that we are proposing, it would be appropriate to study whether the amount should be declared and, if so, what the guidelines should be and how they should be arrived at. An example is the value of a share in an unquoted company, and the value of benefits in kind.
I do not want to appear to avoid the crunch question of enforceability. It is not in our amendment. Like many hon. Members, we lived under what proved to be the illusion that the register is unenforceable. I should welcome the guidance of the Leader of the House. I read the speeches of the then right hon. Member for South Down, Mr. Enoch Powell, in 1975. A specious argument was put forward at the time. I ask for the Leader of the House's guidance on whether the register as it stands is enforceable. No one suggests that a resolution of the House should supersede statute law, which is what Mr. Powell claimed in 1975. The resolution is not intended to do that. Paragraph 37 of the Committee's report in 1974 is headed:
"Enforcement of the Requirements to Register".
It states:
As the Clerk of the House pointed out, 'The ultimate sanction behind the obligation upon Members to register would be the fact that it was imposed by Resolution of the House … There can be no doubt that the House might consider either a refusal to register as required by its Resolutions or the wilful furnishing of misleading or false information to be a contempt'.
On that basis, it seems that the same remedies are available in our internal disciplines in the House as when, for example, Mr. Speaker deals with other issues relating to contempt of the House.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has been fair, but I ask him to look at amendment (d) in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and others. Is not that a disqualification? If an hon. Member does not declare in the register, he may not take his seat. Is not that a matter for primary legislation, not resolution of this place?

Mr. Williams: I looked at the amendment closely. My name is not on it because I do not have the hon. Gentleman's advantage of being a lawyer. I could not make up my mind whether it is as he describes. If my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) wants to deal with that himself, I am only too happy to relinquish the responsibility to him. I suspect that it is unnecessary, regardless of whether it is correct or incorrect, although I would welcome the guidance of the Leader of the House on whether my proposition is valid.
Is it necessary, as the Select Committee suggested in 1975–76 in the House of Commons document 479, that the House should render the resolution binding by incorporating it in the Standing Orders? As the matter stands now, does it have any mandatory basis? If the Leader of the House can give satisfactory answers when he replies on that aspect, it could preclude us from seeking to divide the House on certain other issues.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: What the House can do does not depend on memoranda written by Clerks. From time out of mind when the House has passed a resolution saying something is a contempt, that does not have to be embodied in Standing Orders and so it remains until and unless the House alters that resolution. The House can expel hon. Members who place themselves in contempt of its resolutions. It does not need a memorandum from the Clerk to make that known to each and every hon. Member.

Mr. Williams: I quoted what the Clerk said because it seemed to me that he would stand in greater repute on legal matters than I and it was contained in the report that came to the House.
It seemed to me that the resolution was already enforceable and that is why I asked the Leader of the House whether he would make it clear whether the recommendation made in 1975–76 was necessary. My reading of the matter is that the resolution as it stands is already enforceable.

Mr. Robert Adley: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. As you have selected amendment (b) in the name of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), two of his hon. Friends and three Members of the Liberal party, not a single one of whom has had the courtesy to turn up in the House, is it your intention that that should be voted upon?

Mr. Speaker: They may turn up, and in any event I have already announced my selection.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: May I take your advice, Mr. Speaker, and, I hope, be given your help? The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) made an interesting comment about my amendment and suggested that the insertion in two of the recommendations of the word "relevant" might make them acceptable to the House. Would it be all right if one of my hon. Friends— I know that one is present—moved a


manuscript amendment later today so that the word "relevant" could be inserted'? Although the recommendations are sound, it might make for greater acceptance if that were done.

Mr. Speaker: May I consider the hon. Gentleman's point before I rule on it?

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Leader of the House for finding time to debate the Select Committee's report. It is the first time that we have had one of our reports debated and I am thankful for that. I also welcome his comments and the fact that he endorses so much of it, but naturally I am sorry that he does not agree with our three main recommendations. However, I understand his reasons and I am sure he would equally understand if I pursue the matter. I also express my gratitude to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West for the way in which he has received the report in even more generous terms.
It is particularly important for the Select Committee to have an opportunity to test the opinion of the House. The cohesion and strength of purpose of the Committee depends on its understanding of what the House will or will not bear. There is little value in producing a report which impinges so personally on hon. Members if the Committee ends up either hopelessly divided or completely out of touch with the feeling of the House. That is no way to make progress. I hope that the House will note that the Committee has met, deliberated on the matters and presented a unanimous report.
I welcome the debate for a wider reason. The House is conscious, and rightly so—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made this point—of the need to maintain its integrity. It recognises the fact that to do so it is essential that hon. Members are indeed honourable and open and honest with one another. Whatever political differences divide us, we know that this place depends on trust and that it is trust in one another's integrity which unites us as well as maintaining our confidence in our proceedings.
Equally—it is a point worth making in view of the interest shown by the media—we are answerable to the electorate who recognise our need to demonstrate to the public our concern and so earn their confidence in us and in the good name of Parliament. I think that we can all agree that the Select Committee is just one part of that process. It cannot do the whole job. That is why in 1969 the Select Committee recommended that the House make the declaration of interest mandatory and the register was set up in 1974. I emphasis the word "mandatory". The need to declare is not, as has often been said, and most recently repeated ad nauseam in the media, a voluntary requirement; it is mandatory. So far only one hon. Member—

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Ex-Member.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: —one former Member has refused to declare and register his interests. We all know that nothing has happened as a consequence. The resolution of the House has not been enforced. We have invited the House on previous occasions so to do but it has decided not to enforce it. If that is the view of the House, the Committee would be most happy to reconsider the

matter. Undoubtedly the present system is cumbersome and unwieldy and is sometimes described as a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Be that as it may, in 1977 the Select Committee recommended to the House that we might pursue the matter of enforcement through a Standing Order and the Standing Order—

Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that if he accepted the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) the problem could be solved?

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: It is one way of solving it. I have great respect for the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) who is a hardworking Member of the Committee. I would prefer not to pass any judgment but just to draw to the attention of the House the fact that there is another way of dealing with the matter through the Standing Order procedure.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Making it a Standing Order does not deal with it. The only thing that deals with it is a motion proposed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to take enforcement action against a Member who has divided, whether it be a Standing Order or a resolution. Merely making it a Standing Order does not deal with it if the Standing Order is not enforced.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: It seemed to the Committee in 1977 a rather less cumbersome and simpler way of enforcement than going through the procedure of asking the House to agree to a resolution and therefore to bring a Member into the contempt of the House. Those are matters we are only too happy to look at.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will forgive me if I say one or two things that may be obvious to some but not to others and less so perhaps to those who read our affairs and those who are involved in public relations, lobbying and other practices. Therefore, I hope that I may have the indulgence of hon. Members.
We well accept that the report is limited in scope. No Committee members considered that it was the last word on the subject of lobbying or Members' interests. However, contrary to what some may think, once the Committee produces a report it is not just disbanded. It can consider representations and complaints and to keep matters under active review.
I am grateful that the motion of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House acknowledges and welcomes the fact that we intend to keep these matters under review. The motion says that it
"welcomes the intention of the Committee … to keep under review both Parliamentary lobbying and the appropriate scope of the declaration and registration required of Members who are so engaged."
Surely that is right.
Among the duties laid upon us by Standing Order No. 107 is the duty
"to consider any proposals made by Members or others as to the form and contents of the Register … to consider what classes of person (if any) other than Members ought to be required to register and to make recommendations upon these and ocher matters which are relevant."
Some three years ago the Select Committee decided to consider whether classes of person other than Members should be required to register. The Select Committee had previously considered that question in 1974 and concluded that registration should be restricted to hon. Members


[Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith]
only. However, the Committee envisaged that, with the passage of time, the balance of advantage might change. Indeed, with the passage of time we have become aware of the growth in lobbying, that access to the precincts of this House has become more sought after, that the number of all-party and registered parliamentary groups has increased and that there has been a veritable flood of research assistants, notably this summer, who invade the House—

Mr. Adley: Haunt it.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I would not say that they haunt it—indeed, some of them are extremely attractive.
The committee embarked upon its inquiry into whether the register should be extended—

Mr. Nellist: Will the hon. Gentleman take on board the fact that there may be people—especially outside the Chamber—more interested in the fact that 55 Tory Members of Parliament are moonlighting by working here when their real interests lie outside the House? The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) holds the chairmanship of 29 companies and a further three directorships. I do not know how he manages to attend the House at all. Remarks about secretaries and research assistants pale into insignificance—[Interruption.] Come on, Mr. Speaker, let me have a bit of protection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will sit down. He intervened to ask a question, but he appears to be making a contribution to the debate. He must put his question.

Mr. Nellist: Do not remarks about secretaries and research assistants pale into insignificance compared with the number of Tory Members of Parliament who moonlight by turning up in this Chamber when their real careers lie outside the House?

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman moonlight when he is here or when he is serving as a county councillor?

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) is not following my argument. If he shows a little more patience, I am sure that he will find that everything that should be put into its proper perspective will be so put.
While we are conscious of the growth of professional lobbying during recent years, we are also aware of the risk of conflict of interest where hon. Members are professionally engaged in that area. We all recognise that an hon. Member must be free to discharge his duties on behalf of his constituents and the country at large. Equally, it is the right of any citizen to represent his interests through his Member of Parliament and to lobby. Whether they are companies, trade unions or charitable bodies, they all do it; it is part of the democratic process.
It was in trying to balance those considerations about lobbyists, both in terms of difficulties of definition and the wish not to appear to give any group special privilege, that the Committee rejected the idea of a register. I am grateful to have the endorsement of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on that point.
On whether to extend the scope of what hon. Members are currently asked to declare, the Committee decided that

the balance struck between openness and privacy was about right. Nevertheless, it had received worrying evidence about doubtful practices, so it undertook to keep the matter under review, together with any further developments in lobbying techniques. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West will gather from what I have said that keeping the matter under review is exactly what we mean. Indeed, the Committee decided that it would be reasonable to consider some of the current practices and whether the constraints imposed upon voting intentions and the amounts earned should be declared.
The Committee considered whether to extend the register to other classes of person. It found that unexpected use was being made of the privileged access to Parliament by some of those holding passes to the Palace. Allegations were made that those with access to the building were providing a paid service to people who were other than their stated employers. That is why the Committee recommended that, for example, journalists should register other interests.
The Committee received evidence that some of those engaged in professional public relations work secured passes as Members' research assistants and secretaries to gain full and prompt access to parliamentary papers. The Committee said that they should declare their interests if they were earning over and above what they could earn for the express purpose stated for their attending the House. It is important that when hon. Members talk to a lobby journalist or research assistant they should be sure that they actually work here and do not represent some other interests.
It was not strictly within the Committee's competence to consider the use of subterfuge. However, many people find it disagreeable, as did the Committee, that the use of subterfuge is necessary to be able promptly to obtain parliamentary papers. It is clear that the solution is to provide a parliamentary bookshop with public access. I know that one is planned for the new building, but that is some years ahead. In the meantime, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will consider setting up a temporary bookshop.
The Committee considered the question of what to do with all-party groups—now called registered groups, although they are not always registered. It discovered that some of those groups received support from outside organisations, but that that was not always declared. It felt that the House should know about that, and recommended that the groups should declare any outside sources of income. If the groups had working for them someone who was not an hon. Member but someone representing another organisation, the House should know about that also.
The Committee's recommendations are set out in the amendment and are designed to secure openness. What we are requesting should be registered is far less than that which Members are asked to declare publicly. The register would not be made public, but maintained for the use of hon. Members. I am sure that the officers of all-party and registered groups would be happy to furnish the necessary information, and the representatives of secretaries and research assistants have expressed their willingness to register.
Curiously enough, and I do not wish to offend the powerful fourth estate as many of them are friends of mine, to date it has been only the representatives of the Lobby and Gallery—those journalists who are


demanding that the Members' register should be extended—who have objected to being asked to register the gainful uses to which they put their privileged access to the House.
I should like to refer to the Committee's future work and put it into perspective. I hope that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West heard the message, when he was at the far end of the Chamber, that we shall look into his suggestions. The Committee has already discussed informally arid agreed to an hon. Member's request that we should consider whether an hon. Member should be called upon to declare the amount of remuneration as well as the source. It will not be easy to determine this matter, especially as some hon. Members who have put their names to one motion believe that Members should rely solely on their parliamentary salaries.
I do not want to debate the issue but shall make one point as an illustration of the problems that we are likely to face. Due to the vagaries of the election process, there is a rapid turnover of Members. Members come here knowing that their life expectancy in the first round is probably only four or five years. It is not surprising that some people with family responsibilities, knowing that they have a short spell ahead of them, cling to the lifeline of an outside interest, and I think that we should be generous in that respect. We all know that Members' needs and personal responsibilities vary. There is no career structure, no merit award system, no grading of salaries for seniority, experience or responsibility, and no demerit awards for garrulity. Minister, too, are subject to the vagaries of parliamentary fortune. They, too, can fall from grace through a mistake, a change in the election or a leader's whim. We all know that this can happen.
Constraints on voting are normally matters for the Select Committee on Procedure. However, if the Select Committee on Members' Interests is asked to consider this issue, I would expect those constraints to come within our terms of reference, providing they are discussed in a financial context. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will give some advice on that.
We all know that the constraints under which a Minister of the Crown operates are tightly drawn. Ministers of the Crown can have no outside interests. They can draw only one salary. We all know the reasons for that. In contrast, a Back Bencher has no executive powers. In that respect, he has less power than some councillors we know. However, Members have influence—some more than others—although it is subject to all kinds of scrutiny, not least by Members themselves who have an uncanny knack from time to time of judging the merits of the influence or value of the advice of one Member against another. If it is right not to devalue that influence, it is surely common sense not to exaggerate it either. The same goes for lobbyists, who sometimes like to claim that they have more influence than they know to be the case.
The House is full of checks and balances. It is only by recognising the need to preserve the balances without weakening the checks on abuse and failing to see the need for new ones that the Select Committee on Members' Interests can proceed and earn in its own right the confidence of the House and, I hope, of those outside.

Mr. Roy Mason: I should like to refer to the 14 Select Committees which were established after the 1979 general election. The parliamentary Labour

party was foolish to continue manning them after the 1983 election. The Labour party has about 200 Members of Parliament. We have difficulty in manning the Standing Committees on Bills and the 14 extra Select Committees. They take about one quarter of our parliamentary strength. I suppose that, after the 1983 election, some Members of Parliament wanted the glamour of being on a Select Committee. It was an innovation, a chance to get at the Executive, to have a few swans abroad and to pick current newsy political topics for examination, followed by a burst of publicity and then, usually, a 24-hour blurb in the press.
Select Committees meet 40 per cent. of the time the House is sitting—hence empty Chambers and snide remarks from the press, making it easier for Ministers because there is less interrogation and pressure. Above all, the Government take little notice of the reports and recommendations and, apart from the reports of the Committee of Public Accounts, fewer than 5 per cent. of the Select Committee reports since 1979 have been debated.
I suppose that too many parliamentarians have a vested interest in Select Committees continuing, useless though they are. No doubt there are some more knowledgeable parliamentarians, especially those who take the subjects seriously, but only about 60 per cent. attend regularly. They get swamped with bureaucratic bumf; some do riot read it all; and Ministers, civil servants and industrialists know when questioned whether the Member of Parliament has done his homework.
I have appeared before and sat on Select Committees and therefore have some knowledge of them. Now we also have a civil servant-like structure propping them up—clerks, secretaries and typists, plus an established career structure. Those people do not want Select Committees to be curtailed or abolished either. An alliance has therefore been formed.
The 14 Select Committees represent a massive investment of money, time and travel for practically no return. Whitehall is full of dust-covered Select Committee reports which will never be heeded or debated. It is a national system—a national boring system—employing hundreds of Whitehall civil servants and House of Commons clerks, a paper-grown empire of relatively worthless activity. I believe that the Select Committees should be abolished.
This brings me to our report and the question whether it will be heeded. We are not one of those 14 Select Committees. We are not shadowing or stalking a Department. We do not have money to travel. We are a Housebound Committee examining Members' interests and how they affect the House. We sat for more than 18 months examining witnesses, lobbyists, members of the Press Gallery and others. The Committee does not have a totally free hand, because many of the in-House activities are covered by the Services Committee and complaints about Members using House facilities must be referred to that Committee.
We have prepared a report which has three main recommendations. According to the motion in the name of the Leader of the House—on this occasion, the mouthpiece of Government—the Government have decided to ignore the lot. Why have we been sitting for two Sessions? What a sheer waste of time. The Government are laughing their heads off, tucking Members away so they cannot cause any trouble. We are to be treated like


the rest of the Select Committees. The Leader of the House regards our report just like the vast majority of others—as dustbin material.
We recommend that, because of nefarious, dubious, money-making activities by some journalists and research assistants using, abusing and exploiting facilities in the House through the use of their job passes, three registers should be established—for lobbyists, Gallery journalists and research assistants. If there is to be a clean-up—if that is the "in" phrase—let them register their extra press jobs, public relations activities and extra-mural commercial dealings.
Of course I respect the integrity of the vast majority of our press men. There is no doubt that the majority stick to the Lobby and Gallery rooms and work solely for the paper accredited on their pass. I ask the House not to be diverted too much by the recent hoo-hah by a handful of Tory Members involved in the Channel tunnel contracts. They have been flushed out anyway and have suffered politically as a result. By concentrating on that aspect of our parliamentary affairs, the press is shrouding its own misdemeanours. Look at last Sunday's headlines: the Sunday Telegraph—
The real issues of MPs' extras";
The Sunday Times—
New bid to make MPs come clean";
and The Observer—
MPs must come clean on lobbyists".
There was no mention of our report or our recommendations, and no mention of cleaning up the press.
I shall support amendment (g), which was probably tabled because of the hoo-hah in recent days. The Tories swept into power in 1983 and brought in many young men who had never expected to be Members—executives, directors and those involved in public relations and advertising. They are not giving up their jobs, because they fear going out at the next sweep. They are not registering their remuneration. Their constituents would like to know, because it proves that they have no faith in staying here.
I warn my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) that there is a Biffen trap here in relation to trade union-sponsored MPs. The Committee may be given terms of reference to look at that issue—for example, how much a trade union pays a sponsored MP or his constituency party; whether the trade union employs his secretary and research assistant; how much of his general election expenses it pays; and how much it gives for weekend schools and conferences? Do the trade unions want all that revealed? On the basis of remuneration revealed—substantial sums may be involved—the Conservatives will have not a 140 majority on trade union legislation; they might have a 240 majority because we should be barring some of our own trade union colleagues from voting. We should beware of that.
Lobby and Gallery journalists have facilities made available to them on the strict understanding that they are used solely for the dissemination of news to the general public through their newspapers, news agencies, radio and news magazines. It is an abuse of Gallery and lobby membership for a member to pass on material gained through being a member, using his parliamentary press card, to interests outside journalism; in other words, to other outside interests.
This House is used by some journalists—we do not know how widespread is the practice—as a base for feeding information to non-news outlets, to commercial and industrial organisations, and it can be a very lucrative business. What do the Lobby and Gallery do about it? Nothing at all. It is a big cover-up, a closed shop. They know it exists, and they probably know the culprits. They can besmirch a Member of Parliament and this House, but do not want it known that they have black sheep in their family.
I urge the House to read the evidence given by Mr. Russell, the Deliverer of the Vote, beginning at page 74 of the report. Answering questions, he said:
We have a number of the press and Lobby correspondents, whom again we can identify, as using the resources of the Vote Office for their own sidelines in public relations. Those two categories are quite easily identifiable. … I am talking about professional parliamentary services given to groups".
When asked about research assistants, he said, revealing something similar:
The same thing does arise in cases of members of the press, yes. There are several organisations, one particular one which we regard as extremely suspect in regard to its activities within the House because we do not believe that they do in fact perform the correct duties of Lobby correspondents—they are acting as an agency and obtaining an enormous amount of documents from us … In March of this year one particular press organisation, which has seven accredited members to it, took a total of £850 worth of documents other than Votes and Proceedings from the Vote Office—in the month of March.
What a racket. He had to chase them week after week to force them to pay that back, because he recognised that he had to be able to defend himself should he have to appear before the Committee. There is no doubt about what is going on, and if Mr. Russell knows, the journalists know, too.
That is why our Committee wants a register for the Lobby and Gallery. They have privileged access for commercial gain. There is no telling who outside is benefiting. They could be feeding embassies and other not so friendly organisations, disseminating special material, sometimes well ahead of the time when it would normally be available to them. Some organisation will pay handsomely for that. That is why we would like to see them registered, just like Members, and that is all.
The research assistants and secretaries agree, especially the latter. At page 79 of the report hon. Members will see that Mrs. J. Griffin-Smith, on their behalf, stated:
Yes, of course we will comply; it is less than you are asking Members of Parliament to do.
We simply ask for a register on which to declare any other remunerated occupation, yet the Leader of the House will not accept that. I should have thought that the House would regard that recommendation of ours as a prerequisite to Members being called on to declare what remuneration they receive, because those in the Gallery and Lobby who besmirch Members on that score are as guilty themselves. Their purpose in recent weeks has been to attack hon. Members, taking the spotlight away from themselves and diverting the investigative Committee reporting of their lucrative undercover operations.
What will the Leader of the House and the Serjeant at Arms do about it? We have revealed what is happening and the evidence is there—
providing political advice and intelligence for reward"—
and that was part of our terms of reference. If no notice is taken of our report, the Committee might as well pack up and the Members' Register be abolished, too. We ask of others only what we are obliged to do.

Sir Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey): 00000: In one of the newspaper articles by which he mainly supported his family during the 1930s, Winston Churchill wrote that historians tended to overlook the not unimportant fact that politicians and their families had to eat, like everyone else.
As we know, some of our greatest statesmen have been beset by financial difficulties. Benjamin Disraeli solved his problems by marrying a rich widow many years older than himself, and Pitt the younger by not marrying at all and dying in his forties. Such drastic solutions are unlikely to commend themselves to every hon. Member, and after careful consideration I rejected both of them myself.
Many of us at some stage in our parliamentary careers have had to worry about our bread and butter, if only to guard against the possibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) pointed out, of losing our seats—a fate that overtook both of us at about the same time.
There are, broadly, only three categories of hon. Member for whom the financial problem does not arise. They are those with inherited wealth or rich wives; the brilliant or lucky who quickly attain ministerial office of such a prestigious nature that it guarantees them subsequent commercial employment for life; and those who are so dedicated and ascetic that they are happily prepared to accept considerable material sacrifice for themselves and their families for the honour of serving their country and constituents here.
One of our strengths in this House is that we are a broad church. There will always be many hon. Members who do not fall into any one of those three categories but who have a real contribution to make to our discussions.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) stated his position with his usual clarity and force, and let us be under no illusion that a great many people outside the House whose general political views might be less radical than his nevertheless sincerely hold the view that hon. Members should not have any sources of earned income other than their parliamentary salaries.
Indeed, that is the general view held throughout the United States. When I go there, as I did last week, people expressed astonishment on hearing that I had a modest commercial career as well as being a Member of Parliament. It is something to which those of us believe that it is important that we should retain the tradition of outside interests should apply our minds. We cannot allow the argument to go by default. It is to that rather broader aspect of the problem that I wish to address my remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden has already dealt extremely authoritatively with the technical aspects of the report of the Committee that he chaired.
If we followed the policy of not allowing Members to have outside earned incomes, it would eventually produce a membership of the House which would be unrepresentative of the country. Above all, this is supposed to be and always has been a representative assembly.

Mr. Nellist: Given that there are 5 million people without jobs, 8·5 million people in work who are below the poverty line and 13 million people dependent upon some form of supplementary benefit to eke out an existence, does not the hon. Gentleman think that the House is already a little unrepresentative when one in

seven Tory Members of Parliament has at least £100,000 cash to enable them to walk through the doors of Lloyd's, and start up as a name in a gambling syndicate?

Sir Peter Tapsell: I have from time to time expressed my views on how we could deal with the unemployment problem. I have applied my mind to how one can acquire the money to become a country member of Lloyd's, although I am not such a member.
If we abolished outside interests as we at present understand them, one of the rather bizarre results that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East should recognise is that we would, as in the United States, become heavily overweighted in this House by the rich. That is what has happened in the United States.
When I was in Cleveland, Ohio, last week I was talking to the campaign manager of Senator Gary Hart, who told me that Senator Hart was one of the few top politicians in the United States who was not a rich man. It was a big problem for him. It is now virtually impossible to have a major political career in the United States unless one is rich. That is one of the results of abolishing outside interests there.
We would not just have a House of Commons which was over-weighted by the rich; there would come to be an unduly high proportion of cranks and crooks in the House. The sad fact is, as experience in many other countries has clearly shown, that the full-time professional politician with little money of his own is peculiarly susceptible to corruption and a target for the potential corrupter. Those who advocate the banning of honest, declared—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend has the reputation of being one of the more independent Members of the House. Does he agree that the possession of an external interest enhances the independence of Back Benchers? If we prohibit them, Back Benchers will be even more dependent than they currently are on the favour of the Whips' Office; that is in no one's interest.

Sir Peter Tapsell: It has occurred to me occasionally, as I have become less poor in recent years than I was when I first entered the House, that I should not, perhaps, have been able to maintain my customary high morale for 26 years on the Back Benches if I had had nothing else to do except to look at the denizens of the Treasury Bench, intriguing though so many of them sometimes are.
Those who advocate the banning of honest, declared outside business interests on the premise that it is the only sure way to maintain impeccable standards of behaviour among Members of Parliament have a mistaken grasp of human psychology. Honesty springs from the man and not from his method of remuneration.
There is another important consideration. The House will be aware of the definition of an economist as someone who knows 70 different ways of making love but has never met a woman. I cannot believe that it would he in the national interest to have a House of Commons consisting entirely of Members who knew 70 different ways of raising taxes and 70 different ways of spending other people's money but who had never made or lost any money for themselves.
There is already some danger that we are moving in that direction. When I first entered the House there were quite a few Members on both sides who had done or were doing something fairly worthwhile outside the House. There were captains of industry, trade union leaders and


distinguished barristers. There were those who had held high rank in the armed services—Jacky Smyth had won a Victoria Cross—or held high rank in the colonial service.
In the Labour party, there was a large and greatly respected group of men who had spent many years at the pit face before coming to the House to represent mining constituencies. On the Tory side, there were the knights of the shires, the genuine article which is almost extinct in the House today. The miners and the knights usually paired with one another, drank together and shared a mutual scepticism of their Front Benches, which they never expected to join. They did not much interest themselves in arcane matters such as proper management of the economy. They provided a ballast and set a tone which is not always evident today. Above all, they were honest. They did not need to be told the difference between right and wrong by young men drawing on the full weight of their experience at polytechnics and advertising agencies.
Of course, this place needs and always has had plenty of full-time politicians. It would not work without them. They perform an invaluable service to the country. They must be catered for by proper salaries and allowances and, I would argue, by much better pension arrangements for them and their widows. But to limit membership of the House entirely to full-time professionals would be to lower its quality, to reduce the variety of its knowledge and to weaken its collective wisdom.
I should, perhaps, interpose here, in view of the intervention of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, that I do not think that I have an interest to declare tonight, because I am at least as well equipped to abandon all my outside commercial interests as the next man. I forbear to do so only out of pity for my party Whips.
No one is more repelled by financial dishonesty or by the shady and underhand conduct of affairs than I am. I detest and despise those of that ilk in the House and the City, and always have. I remember my Presbyterian grandfather, in whose home I grew up, saying when I was not more than five years old, "Never be funny about money." That simple phrase has stuck in my mind ever since, and I have always acted on it.
In any group of men, and perhaps even women, although it is more unusual among women, there will always be a few rotten apples in the barrel, but that is no reason to stop eating apples. There must be full and open disclosure of outside commercial interests. How they can best be declared and if necessary controlled is a matter for discussion, but declared they must be. That has long been the rule and the practice. I much prefer the traditional verbal convention to the written register, but if the register is here to stay, it must be made compulsory. Certainly, the Select Committee of Privileges should proceed sternly against any hon. Member who is found deliberately to have concealed a relevant outside interest. Yet it would be a black day for the House and the country if no hon. Member had any outside interest to declare.

9 pm

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The irony of the debate is that, while we are demanding an end to self-regulation in the City because of a deterioration in

standards, some hon. Members are arguing that self-regulation is sufficient in the House, where there has also been a deterioration in standards. The truth is that some hon. Members have allowed inducements to influence their judgments, and increasingly we are hiding behind the term "honourable Gentlemen" to disguise what is in reality an erosion of the standards expected of us. The public are worried and ask, "What will Parliament do about it?"
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) argued adequately and with great subtlety for the Select Committee's recommendations, particularly in respect of journalists, research assistants, and all-party groups. I wish not to rehearse those matters, but to deal with the terms of my narrow amendment, which to some extent goes to the heart of the problem. The problem is that we are simply not enforcing the register. It is not only that one hon. Member has failed to declare his interest, as the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), the Chairman of the Committee, said. During the past one and a half years there have been many occasions when hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, have refused to sign the register and declare an interest. The reason is simple. Unless the register is enforced for those who deliberately set out to avoid it, they will not comply with it. I refer specifically to Mr. Enoch Powell.
When hon. Members are asked about the credibility and integrity of the register, they always refer to the position of Mr. Enoch Powell. The House has been unwilling to find the right hon. Gentleman in contempt of our House. In a speech in a debate on Members' interests, Mr. Powell made his position clear. Referring to the rule of the House, which the House was about to decide on, he said that it
is ineffective and degrading … unlawful and unconstitutional.
I shall deal with the arguments that he deployed. Mr. Powell commenced his speech with a cautionary note expressing the view that the issue—the excesses of some hon. Members—was being generated only by the press. He argued that the rule would be ineffective, and said:
A sufficient number of hon. Members know very well quite enough about the background of their colleagues … This is a place where, whatever we may individually think, we walk about as naked and visible as if we were under some kind of imaginary X-rays.
So the idea that the register will disclose astonishing facts about Members of this House of which the rest of us have been ignorant and which, either dishonourably or in a fit of amnesia, those hon. Members have not happened to mention, is really an absurdity.
I would say that his view was an absurdity, because the register has provided an abundance of information. It has done the reverse of what Mr. Powell was suggesting.
Mr. Powell then said that it was degrading to have a rule whereby Members are required to register. He said:
we degrade ourselves by implying that our honour and our traditions are not adequate to maintain proper standards in this House.
That is equally absurd. Definitions of the code of honour are highly subjective. It might be said that when the right hon. Gentleman, accused the Prime Minister of being treacherous as he did the other week, he offended my sense of honour. It might be that my comments about the right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) last Friday and his interest in GEC may have offended the code of honour or understanding of honour adopted by the Leader of the House or Conservative Members.
The point is that honour is a highly subjective assessment. What constitutes honour? Our duty is to create some form of benchmark. The code or rule sets the benchmark.
Mr. Powell then argued that the introduction of a rule on registration would be unlawful and unconstitutional. He said:
it is the representation of the people for which we are seeking to legislate by a resolution of the House. We are saying that no one should seek to be a Member of Parliament, and no one is fit to sit and speak and vote as a Member of Parliament who does not comply with the condition of completing an entry in a register. That is something that the House has no power to do. We have no power to alter the law of the land by a resolution of the House."—[Official Report, 12 June 1975; Vol. 893, c. 742–25.]
That has given birth to all the arguments about the need to legislate for the register if it is to be fully enforced.
I am not saying that no one should seek to be a Member of Parliament unless he has complied with the register. People are free to stand and be elected under my amendment. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) is a Member of Parliament, although he has not taken the oath. He has stood, has been duly elected and is known as a Member of Parliament. He is able to carry out his functions as a Member if he so wishes, to some extent. All that we are saying under the rules of the House is that, if he wishes to participate in the Chamber, past the Bar, he must apply our rules and before taking the oath comply with the register. That is what my amendment would seek to do.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: rose—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry, but my hon. Friends would like to speak, and I wish to finish my speech.
According to "Erskine May", 20th edition, page 283, a Member who has not taken the oath is nevertheless entitled to all the other privileges of a Member, (but not his salary).
Therefore, he can receive his mail, correspond with Ministers, enjoy the services of the House, be provided with accommodation, use our cafeterias and bars. He can even come into the Chamber as long as he does not pass the Bar, the white line. Indeed, he can attend meetings of our Committees and speak, although he has not taken the oath. We are not preventing, by way of a rule, a Member being a Member of Parliament. We are simply preventing him from participating in the Chamber.
There is a precedent for this. On the same page of "Erskine May" there are these precedents for hon. Members who formerly did what I have referred to. It says:
On 13 April 1715 it was resolved 'that Sir Joseph Jekyll was capable of being chosen of a committee of secrecy, though he had not been sworn at the Clerk's table.' On 11 May 1858, acting upon this precedent, the House added Baron Rothschild, who had then continued a Member for eleven years without having taken the oaths, to the committee appointed to draw up reasons to be offered to the Lords for disagreeing to the Lords' amendments to the Oaths Bill, at a conference of which he was appointed one of the managers. On 11 May 1880 Mr. Bright was appointed a member of the Parliamentary Oath Committee upon which he served and voted, before he had made his affirmation.
There is adequate precedent for hon. Members to come to the House and participate fully in all aspects of our

activities. They are precluded only from engaging in debate in this Chamber. All that we are doing is denying access to a particular location.
There is even a precedent for this. There is a precedent for exclusion areas within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. There is a precedent for conditionality to the performance of a parliamentary function. That is in the case of an opposed private Bill Committee where a declaration by the Member that he has no personal pecuniary interest must be made prior to the Member serving on that Committee. There are, therefore, other areas of this House that are forbidden those who fail to submit to the rules of the House.
I am simply maintaining tonight that that is the precedent. To talk of legislation is to mislead the House. In the event of my amendment being carried at the end of this debate, we shall have added another rule. We shall have prevented nobody from being elected to this House. Such a person will enjoy all of our facilities, apart from one. He will not be allowed into the Chamber unless, prior to taking the oath, he has signed the register and declared his interests.

Sir Ian Gilmour: The House has just listened to an interesting and extremely tortuous argument by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I cannot help thinking that he plays into the hands of the former right hon. Member for South Down, Mr. Powell. He is proposing a form of disqualification that this House cannot impose. If it is important that there should be an enforceable register of Members' interests, why on earth does not the House legislate to overcome the difficulties that were put forward by Mr. Powell? If it is so important, there would be no real difficulty because, as far as I know, there is only one hon. Member who would oppose the legislation. The Government could therefore legislate, which would avoid the tortuousness of the argument of the hon. Member for Workington.
I very much approve of the Select Committee's approach and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), but there is one point about which I venture to disagree. The suggestion that there should be a register of professional lobbyists has been dismissed. The Committee had some doubts about dismissing it, but I think that my right hon. Friend had fewer doubts about doing so. I do not believe that the definition problem is very important because those who know who are professional lobbyists are the professional lobbyists themselves. If a professional lobbyist is found to be lobbying professionally but has not registered, he will be in an even worse position than hon. Members who get into certain difficulties and he will be exposed. In any case, it is not too difficult to define a professional lobbyist, so I hope that the Committee will look again at this matter. It is a little artificial to refer to giving privileges to people. If control is ever to be exercised, there must be a register. If it is right that there should be a register for hon. Members, there should also be a register for professional lobbyists. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend and the Committee will look again at this matter.
I do not go quite so far as my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell), but I should like to deal briefly with two of the fallacies about interests and people's worries about those interests. A number of people


seem to think that if an hon. Member has an interest, that interest disturbs the general judicial judgment which all hon. Members bring to bear on all matters. If one does not have an interest, people tend to think that we consider the matter and immerse ourselves in the subject and become very well informed and so produce our judicial judgment unswayed by anything.
All hon. Members know that we do not do that and there has not been a debate in that sense in the House this century. An interest is not a piece of mud thrown into an otherwise clear, limpid pool; it is a piece of mud thrown into a lot of other mud.
Hon. Members have many different interests. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are very intent on pleasing the Patronage Secretary. That is a reasonable thing to do as he is a very good man and a very good man to please. But such an interest is likely to sway an hon. Member's judgment, as with a number of other matters. For example, other hon. Members may be swayed by a desire for publicity.
It is a fallacy to say that if an hon. Member has a pecuniary interest in a matter his judgment will be far worse than that of another hon. Member. If there were such people—and there may be one or two in the House —it is not my view that they would be better than an hon. Member who has no interest at all, as such a Member may well be a crank or a fanatic. I would prefer hon. Members to have interests rather than to be cranks or fanatics.
There are some hon. Members who are completely dominated by ideology, and I am not being unfair if I cite the example of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). I believe that most hon. Members would agree that the hon. Gentleman is a useful Member of the House. However, most hon. Members would agree that if the House were composed entirely of hon. Members like the hon. Gentleman there would be too many of his kind.

Mr. Nellist: Unlike the Tory Members who are too busy with directorships and consultancies to play a full role in the House, I bring the experience of spending two years six months out of three years on the dole before I came to the House. The House would be a lot better if there were far fewer business men, consultants, bankers and members of Lloyd's and more people who have had direct experience of the Tory Government's mass unemployment policies and who have lived in some of the housing in which the Government have condemned people to live.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I agree that the experience of the hon. Member on the dole is highly relevant. That is not something one would choose to have experience of, but I respect that experience. The hon. Gentleman will agree that the Labour party has enough difficulty choosing its own members without him trying to choose members for the Conservative party.
The majority of the Labour party has always been very sound on the interests point. That is why they have the block vote. As Sidney Webb said, they needed many trade union people with interests to control the madmen in the constituency Labour parties. It has been a tradition of the Labour party to understand the value of interest.
A great deal of nonsense has been written in the press about the Channel tunnel. Nobody thinks that the Channel tunnel question will be decided by the House. It will be

decided by the two Governments involved and all hon. Members will dutifully vote for it and a little lobbying here or there will make no difference to the outcome. The question of the Channel tunnel has been greatly exaggerated.
It is important that there should be disclosure and I have made one or two suggestions to increase that disclosure, but the press should calm down, and hon. Members should also remain calm.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: It was a great pleasure to listen to the elegant speech of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour). I part company with him on his central point—the question of interest—because although his points were fairly made, we are here talking about pecuniary interest.
This was the first Select Committee on which I have served, and it was a pleasure to do so under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). The report now before us touches on a narrower aspect than the debate in which we are now engaged. It touches on the specific aspect of lobbying, and it has come up with a sensible set of recommendations that were fairly outlined by the hon. Member for Wealden.
The report is a sensible and commendable first step in dealing with a developing problem. Many will say that it does not go far enough, and many would wish to have seen temporary as well as permanent research assistants brought within the register proposed by the Select Committee. Many others might feel that the amount that Members of Parliament receive for their lobbying activities should be listed. But hon. Members who have sat on Select Committees will know that these matters require delicate balance in order to receive the support of the whole Committee.
Some may say that the report does not go far enough, whereas others may feel that it goes too far. But, as the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) effectively said, many members of the press believe that it goes too far in its recommendations relating to them, judging by the intemperate and wholly inaccurate comments that have been made. This report should be seen as a first step to be built on later, no doubt in the light of the comments made in this debate.
I totally support the view that the declaration of financial interests should be made obligatory. That declaration is in danger of being reduced to the level of a farce if it is not made obligatory by some means or other. I listened with care to the interesting, though slightly Byzantine, speech of the hon. Member for Workington, (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and although I would have preferred the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] That amendment has not been selected, and having listened to the interesting arguments of the hon. Member for Workington, I think that his proposal is better. I am glad that it has been selected, and I shall support it.
Another amendment in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends requires that we should declare all sources over and above parliamentary salaries, including the amounts received. The Select Committee considered whether that would infringe the privacy of Members of Parliament or their clients, but in my view when a person joins this House he is involved in the business of public


affairs and must therefore relinquish some of that privacy. It is right and proper that such a person and others with whom he is in contact should be prepared to forgo some of the privacy so that the affairs with which we are dealing can be seen to be more open.
Privacy often leads to secrecy, and secrecy is the blanket behind which corruption can take place. I do not say that it does. I therefore believe that there is a need to declare all sources over and above parliamentary salaries. Personally, I would go even further. There is only one loyalty that Members of this House have, and that loyalty is derived from the vote cast in the ballot box. It is that which makes their loyalty signally and exclusively to the British people.

Mr. George Foulkes: The British School of Motoring.

Mr. Ashdown: In the interests of brevity—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Ashdown.

Mr. Ashdown: I will have to answer that challenge. We hear some curious sophistries from the Labour party about how union funds which are passed not into its hands—not into individual hands or members' hands—but to constituencies in no way need declaration and that they do not intend to corrupt a Member of Parliament's judgment and need not be declared. What a curious piece of sophistry. The British School of Motoring fund was a contribution not to a Member—[Interruption]— of Parliament or to his constituency but to a party.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is so much noise from below the Gangway that I cannot hear myself.

Mr. Ashdown: I merely draw attention to the fact that, when the amendment upon which this farrago was based—relating to driving instruction—came before the House of Lords it received Liberal and SDP support and Labour party support. This is a matter upon which, I am delighted to note, Labour Weekly recently commented—perhaps more honestly than Labour Members of Parliament. Labour Weekly said:
We apologise unreservedly to BSM and its Chairman … and we are happy to take this opportunity to put the record straight.
It is a great pity that Labour Weekly seems to have more honesty in this matter than many Labour Members of Parliament.
If I may now return to the substance—

Mr. Terry Lewis: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman said that he would mention that slightly contentious matter. Could he now be heard in silence?

Mr. Ashdown: I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I try to make some progress.
I believe that there is one primary loyalty, which is exercised exclusively and which derives from the ballot box. Any other source of paid employment must create conditions which—I do not say "necessarily result"—encourage, if not corruption certainly dilution of that primary loyalty. This is an opposite view to that taken by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham but it is an honestly held individual view.
The hon. Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell), who is not now in his place, talked about the need to pay Members of Parliament effectively and sufficiently if they

are to answer only to that primary loyalty. In my view, it is not a question of Members' salaries, which are in themselves adequate, but allowances for secretarial and research assistants, which are not.

Mr. Allan Rogers: What about pension?

Mr. Ashdown: I have one salary which I receive as a Member of Parliament and I have neither pension nor any other outside remuneration. Furthermore, I wish to make it clear that I have to spend more than £6,000 of my parliamentary salary for my research assistants and the resources that I need to do my job effectively. We need —[Interruption.]

Sir Kenneth Lewis: rose—

Mr. Ashdown: I can see the time. I have a point to make and I intend to make it. I see the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) looking at his watch. Just at the moment, I am on my feet and I intend to stay on my feet and make those points even if I have the whole House baying at me. The result is that other hon. Members who have something to say will not be able to do so. I suggest that they might learn to sit back and listen. That might be an appropriate way for them to behave in the House. They dishonour the House by such behaviour as this. I shall continue so long as I get a decent hearing.
Paying Members of Parliament at the present level is appropriate for their needs, but we also need adequate resources to pay for the staff that we need to help us do our job effectively, and we do not have sufficient resources for that at the moment. In this regard, we have something to learn from the United States. I understand that representatives of the people there are not entitled to any other outside payment.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: They are paid enough.

Mr. Ashdown: Precisely. They must be paid adequately for that to happen. It is true that the United States system is corrupted by the process of campaign funds. Just as they look to our system of campaign funds and wish that they had a similar one to prevent corruption, we might look to their system of paying representatives adequately so that, in service, they cannot be corrupted.
It has been made quite clear that I am in a minority. I fully recognise that, but I take strength from the belief that what I have advanced will prove to be the prevailing view. I understand that it was Ibsen who said that in a democracy, the minority is always right. I think that my party sometimes takes comfort from that.
The amendment is a first step. It does not end up where I should like it to but I hope that it will be accepted. The Government have lectured the country about values but the Government's values have elevated private greed to a public virtue. We have seen how those values have infected the City of London with corruption and how it has spread like a cancer into Lloyd's. Those great institutions are in danger of descending into a cesspit of sharp practice and corrupt dealing. It would be all too easy for those values, created by the atmosphere that the Government have fostered, to spread into this House. Many people outside, having seen such dramatic programmes as that which was recently shown on "Newsnight," I believe that that is in imminent danger of happening. I believe that such fears are groundless and that the House and the


Members of it are still worthy of the title "honourable." It is up to us, however, to come to terms and to be seen to come to terms with the threat that is now posed.
The Select Committee report is a useful start in a limited area. I commend it, not as a solution but as a first step in a continuing process to put our own house in order and to ensure that our integrity and our right to represent the people of Britain is protected and unsullied.

Mr. Robert Adley: The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) will forgive me if I do not follow his tortured deliberations. I agree with him in one respect. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) chaired the Committee extremely agreeably and satisfactorily and all of us who served on it thank him.
I strongly agree with the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) that the Select Committee's conclusions undoubtedly upset the press, which has tried to ridicule our proposals and divert attention from the contents of our report. It is clear from this evening's proceedings that the press has no shortage of willing helpers.
I shall deal with three false assumptions which I believe overlie most of the public discussion on hon. Members' interests and connected matters. The assumption of several Opposition Members that money affects the behaviour of hon. Members more than any other factor is rubbish. One Opposition Member has been persistent, and properly so, in his representations to the Committee about declarations of interests, but he is not present this evening because he is facing a reselection process in his constituency. No one could pretend that the pressures that he faces from those who control his destiny bear any resemblance to the pressure brought about by moneys that hon. Members earn through activities outside the House. No one could suggest that outside earnings exert more influence over the behaviour of hon. Members than constituency Labour parties.
Many of us understand what some hon. Members sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers went through during the miners' strike because they were unable to state publicly the views they held privately about Arthur Scargill. That pressure has not been mentioned tonight, but it is more insidious than sums of money.
The second assumption is that hon. Members have outside interests only to pursue parliamentary campaigns. That is rubbish. Many hon. Members, whether they are business men, professional people or whatever their occupation, have given years of their lives acquiring experience which is not only of value to those they serve but which enriches the advice that they lend to the House.
For many years, since before I came to the House, I have been involved with a hotel group. A few years ago I was offered a senior position in that company on condition that I left the service of the House. I declined. It is nonsense to perpetuate the assumption that Members of Parliament pursue outside interests only to influence other hon. Members and Ministers.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) has already touched on the third assumption. During the current discussion on the Channel fixed link, it was seen that Ministers on occasions

have to deal with decisions that could benefit commercial companies. Those occasions are extremely rare. The reality is that many lobby organisations take money from their clients under false pretences. They pretend to their clients that by hiring the services of a parliamentary consultancy the companies will gain the inside track and the ear of hon. Members and Ministers to influence decisions. Generally, that is absolute nonsense. It suits those organisations to exaggerate the influence of Back Benchers. We should have nothing to do with that.
We should examine further some of the proposals that have been put forward tonight. I utterly reject the proposition that hon. Members should not have outside interests, for many of the reasons already put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Linsey (Sir P. Tapsell). If no outside interest were allowed, many with real ability might refuse to stand for Parliament and that could not be good for the country.
If changes are to be made, let us not only consider the United States example. Recently a delegation from Hungary visited Britain. None of its Members of Parliament is paid and all have outside occupations. Perhaps we should consider receiving no pay, but continuing with our outside occupations to bring the experience of trade union leaders or business men to bear. However, that would probably be unacceptable.
Perhaps a slightly odd suggestion would be that Members' pay should be related to what they were earning before coming to the House and not to a fixed sum. At least that would separate the sheep from the goats. The other alternative to outside interests is to pay Members a going rate on the basis of other legislatures. I do not want to share the United States experience, which would mean that one would have to be rich to become a Member. That would be wrong. On the whole, we have an open and honest society. Let us examine some of the propositions that have been made this evening, but let us not get carried away on a wave of hysteria which bears no relation to reality.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: (Morley and Leeds, South) The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) raised two issues that rang bells in my mind. First, I was reselected last Friday by a party which accepts disagreement with me and believes that that is part of political life. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Members of Parliament in Hungary. I am advised that they meet six days a year. I agree very much with the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). If we vote in favour of it this evening, the 15 Ulster Unionist Members, when they return in the new year, and among them Mr. Enoch Powell, will be hoist by the words of my hon. Friend's amendment.
As for the hon. Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell), I observe that it is not only eminent statesmen who are short of money. I have known Members of this place with private incomes who have been cranks and sometimes barmy. It is not only those with another income who are independent of political forces. It is not only country gentlemen who can look sceptically at their Front Bench.
The hon. Member for Christchurch raised an issue briefly and then dismissed it, but I am concerned about the Channel tunnel, especially during the next five or six months when it is discussed in this place. It is an issue that will not be covered by the register. If all those concerned


registered their interest in the firms involved in the project, my concern would not be removed. The motion emphasises that it is:
the personal responsibility of each Member to have regard to his public position and the good name of Parliament in any work that he undertakes or any interest he acquires".
If I have learnt anything in this place, it is that many so-called parliamentary consultants and lobbyists obtain money for doing precious little. There are so many in industry who believe that they are receiving a service of importance, and one that, in fact, cannot be delivered. However, that is their fault. It is a measure of the lack of knowledge of the way in which Government works that they are prepared to pay so-called consultants and lobbyists.
Last week, the Secretary of State for Transport said that it had not been decided whether there would be a fixed link nor which of the four schemes was preferable. He mentioned the four valid proposals and said that they would be assessed by the Anglo-French group. He told us that after the President of France and the Prime Minister had made a decision, a White Paper would be produced. He explained that the hybrid Bill procedure would be adopted and that then the House would decide.
Only rarely in Government, as an Army Minister or an Air Force Minister, did I ever decide anything about the provision of equipment for the armed forces. As Home Secretary, I certainly did not decide who was to build a prison. That was certainly not the position in Northern Ireland, because there one decides who will not build a prison.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The House will not have the chance of deciding between one project and another. The choice will be merely yes or no on the only choice before us. That is rather different.

Mr. Rees: I understand that, but the House will decide and that is why we stupidly get Christmas cards from Channel tunnel promoters. I believe that two companies have done that. If I was making the decision, those are the two companies that would not get the contract because the people running them must be daft if they think that that will influence anybody in the House. That important issue will influence the south of England and ports in other parts of the country, and we shall play a part in the decision.
I believe that no Member of Parliament should receive any payment for acting as a consultant lobbyist for any one of the four Channel tunnel schemes. It was said this evening that under the private Bill procedure one must sign a statement to the effect that there is no pecuniary advantage. There is an element of private Bill procedure in the hybrid arrangements for discussing the Bill. If that is good enough for the private Bill procedure, and the private Bill procedure is embedded in the hybrid procedure, the same thing should apply. It would be wrong for any hon. Member to receive anything for being involved in lobbying for something on which we are to take a decision.
In addition to that, at the end of the day it is the Government's job to provide information about the four schemes. It should not come from lobbyists. If I want to interest myself in the four schemes, I do not wish to go to a lobbyist to find out about them. If I were a Minister I would obtain information from officials on which to decide about the four schemes. There would be procedures in the cinema downstairs and one would spell out the

advantages and have people in to discuss the scheme. I have raised the issue, albeit briefly, because in the past week or 10 days, having read through all the Select Committee's reports, it has struck me that a register by itself will not do. The register simply asks hon. Members to list those things in which they have an interest.
Before the register there must have been occasions in private Bill procedures when hon. Members had an interest—for example when the railways and the canals were built in the 18th century.
The House and the Government must do something because too many people are asking whether I saw the "Newsnight" programme the other day, showing the way in which people are obtaining money on an issue for which the House is directly responsible. That is not the sort of thing that the hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned—money for doing nothing—because industrialists and people in commerce do not know what they are doing. That is for real and we should do something about it.

Mr. Tony Marlow: One of the current problems in the register is that it is filled in at about this time of the year. Some of the issues such as the Channel tunnel can suddenly come up halfway through the year, and they have been debated and decided by the House before the register has been completed.

Mr. Rees: I understand that nowadays the register is filled in monthly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Weekly".] If I am to be involved in anything, I write upstairs to tell them what is happening. I do not think that there is a problem in that respect. Indeed, the film on "Newsnight" showed that one hon. Member, it having been revealed that he was receiving money, then filled in the form.
That one issue is not covered by the register. The House will play a part by contracting in a different way. I accept that. It will be similar to local government. There are rules in local government in that respect and there should be rules about the Channel tunnel. It reflects badly on hon. Members if we do not act in time.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: The Select Committee was charged with examining, on behalf of the House, whether it would be possible to protect the reputation of the House and its proceedings by developing the way in which the declaration of relevant financial interests has operated since 1974.
One thing that the Select Committee was not prepared to do and was never asked to do was to pander to idle curiosity or reverse snobbery. Its task was to look specifically at the ways in which the reputation of the House could be protected. Two potential routes could have been followed. One would have been to increase the complexity and severity of the requirements that are placed upon Members of Parliament, but it was not chosen, one reason being that the moment that one starts to pry more closely into the affairs of any Member of Parliament, the question arises as to the extent to which one should look at the interests of hon. Members' families. That raises a new series of questions about how far the House is entitled to pry into hon. Members' private affairs.
I have a nil declaration in the Register of Members' Interests. I take no pride in that, and it is no cause for pleasure. However, it is important that the register is as complete as possible, and it should be enforced. The


Committee decided that there were other people in the House in a privileged position to obtain information and access to Members of Parliament, and that those people should have drawn regularly to their attention the responsibilities that go with their privileges. That is why the Select Committee made three major recommendations, which are included in amendment (e).
I profoundly disagreed with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when he suggested that now is not the time or the tactical moment to introduce those restrictions. If we do not ensure that all those in a privileged position in the House are treated similarly, it will not give us a proper base from which the Committee can move to see whether there are further loopholes or areas in which it is necessary to tighten up the present restrictions.
Therefore, I trust that hon. Members, having entrusted to the Select Committee the task of making recommendations, will now recognise that the Committee has deliberated carefully and has put forward modest but sensible and positive proposals. Right hon. and hon. Members should consider most seriously whether they should reveal that they have a basic confidence in the Committee, and should support the recommendations in the amendment.

Mr. Biffen: It is no disrespect—

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order or a complaint?

Mr. Nellist: It is a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that in a brief debate you have difficulties in calling hon. Members, but when the House selects 12 or 13 hon. Members to form a Select Committee, draw up a report and bring it back to the House, is it in order that six out of the nine Back-Bench Members who were called were members of that Committee and that those who might wish to criticise the report did not get a chance to speak? Why should we send those hon. Members away to the Committee when they are the only ones called to talk about the report when they come back?

Mr. Speaker: The Chair seeks to achieve a balance in all such matters. I took into account the fact that the hon. Gentleman rose to intervene on numerous occasions. That was one of the reasons why he was not called tonight.

Mr. Biffen: I feel fraternal sympathy towards the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) as a member of the endangered species. His departure would be much regretted. By making interventions, he demonstrated that there are more effective ways to speak even than making speeches.
My anxiety is that I have but a few moments to answer the debate. I have deliberately restricted myself to so disciplined a time because I felt that the best service that I could pay would be to give rise to the widest possible debate from the Back Benches and for the Front Benches to be suitably disciplined. Therefore, I want to construct my remarks around the four amendments called for possible Division.
The amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] A warm toast to absent friends. Were he here he might have convinced me otherwise, but in his

absence I have to say that he is inviting the House to make its own judgment about the desirability of the registration of the amounts of financial interest without having the benefit of the study, judgment and reflection of the Select Committee. I advise the House to reject that approach and to take a much more measured policy in those matters.
The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was spoken to with great skill. It was of necessity complex. One hon. Member below the Gangway referred to it as Byzantine. I would not go that far, but it is a complex argument to deal with a novel situation which is suggesting that a resolution of the House might have the effect of preventing a Member from taking his seat until the register had been signed. This is a complex constitutional issue, touching upon the rights of taking one's seat. After all, the oath is taken under the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866, so this would be prescribing something which did not have constitutional enactment. Therefore, it is only proper that my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) has said that he would be prepared for the Select Committee to consider the matter further. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment and we could go forward on that basis.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) asked about a Member who does not sign the register. The position is set out fairly in the 1974–25 report. It is clear that the House could determine what action it took subsequently, but it is a question of measuring the sanction against that rare quality common sense, and there the matter must and will remain until we resolve otherwise.
I said clearly that I wished to reject the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden but I am not a Stalinist in my role as Leader of the House and I found that there was not a single friend for it; thus I had that unique minority situation of Ibsen, so we understand from the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). Therefore, although I said that my opposition was based purely on timing and tactics, I realise that the mood of the House is for the acceptance of the amendment and I am content that that should be the decision, swayed also as I was by the powerful advocacy of the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason). Doubtless, as hundreds of research assistants file a nil return in the coming months, they will reflect that I am following the Mason line.
Amendment (g) in the name of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West seeks to establish two things—the primacy in the use of the Select Committee as our guide in these matters and the need not to rush precipitately into anything until and unless it has been properly and in measured form considered by that Select Committee. Going on from that principle, he has established three areas where he thinks matters need to be reconsidered. It is not that the reconsideration is in any sense novel. I am sure that he will be the first to agree that these issues have been examined by the Select Committee in the past, but after a passage of 10 years or so it is perfectly legitimate that the House should think that the matter might be further considered. In particular, there has been some public comment, and we are properly sensitive to that.
I say "properly sensitive", because we are not here to pry into each other's codes of conduct, although that is obviously a pleasing and enjoyable part of the Tuesday and Thursday knockabout We are all here as collective


guardians of the reputation of the House of Commons, of understanding how it works, of knowing that often the most effective methods of control operate by other than mere mechanical or legalistic fashions. Therefore, we want to test what we understand to be outside interest with our own knowledge of our own selves and our own faith in our own procedures. One way in which we can do that is the proper use of the Select Committee. On that basis, I commend the right hon. Gentleman's amendment and my substantive motion.
Amendment (b) proposed, in line 2, leave out from 'Parliament' to end and add
'but believes that their recommendations will be meaningless unless Right honourable and honourable Members declare all sources of money received over and above their Parliamentary salaries, including the clients of any Parliamentary consultancies held, and the amounts of money received from each source.'.—[Mr. Alton.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Adley: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have had a serious and earnest debate, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has responded magnificently to the mood of the House. We are now being asked to vote on a proposal by right hon. and hon. Members, not one of whom had the courtesy to address the House and only one of whom has been present for only part of the time. I think that the behaviour of the leaders of the SDP and the Liberal party is an abuse of the House and a gross dereliction of good manners.

Mr. Speaker: I selected the amendment, which was properly moved by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton).

Mr. Michael Stern: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, when you selected the amendment you were not to know that the leader of the SDP would show such utter contempt for this House, not only by not bothering to be here to move his amendment, but by not even bothering to appear in the debate at all. Do you have no power to reconsider your selection in order to demonstrate that hon. Members must show more respect both for this House and for your authority?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must know that it is perfectly in order for an hon. Member whose name stands on the Order Paper in support of an amendment to move that amendment.

The House having divided: Ayes 63, Noes 213.

Division No. 30]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Paddy
Forman, Nigel


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Barron, Kevin
Freud, Clement


Beith, A. J.
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hardy, Peter


Bruce, Malcolm
Home Robertson, John


Caborn, Richard
Howells, Geraint


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hoyle, Douglas


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kennedy, Charles


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Dixon, Donald
Livsey, Richard


Dubs, Alfred
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Eadie, Alex
Madden, Max


Eastham, Ken
Maxton, John


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Maynard, Miss Joan





Meadowcroft, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Smith, Rt Hon J. Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Nellist, David
Spearing, Nigel


O'Brien, William
Strang, Gavin


O'Neill, Martin
Straw, Jack


Parry, Robert
Tinn, James


Patchett, Terry
Wainwright, R.


Pendry, Tom
Wallace, James


Pike, Peter
Wareing, Robert


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wilson, Gordon


Prescott, John



Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rooker, J. W.
Mr. David Alton and


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. John Cartwright.


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Hawksley, Warren


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hayes, J.


Amess, David
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Ancram, Michael
Haynes, Frank


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Hayward, Robert


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Heddle, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Henderson, Barry


Batiste, Spencer
Hickmet, Richard


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hicks, Robert


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hind, Kenneth


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hirst, Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bright, Graham
Holt, Richard


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Howard, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Budgen, Nick
Hunter, Andrew


Butcher, John
Jackson, Robert


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Cash, William
Jessel, Toby


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Chope, Christopher
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Cockeram, Eric
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Cope, John
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Cormack, Patrick
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Crouch, David
Knowles, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lamond, James


Durant, Tony
Lawler, Geoffrey


Emery, Sir Peter
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fletcher, Alexander
Lester, Jim


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lightbown, David


Forth, Eric
Lilley, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Fox, Marcus
Lord, Michael


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Luce, Richard


Freeman, Roger
Lyell, Nicholas


Gale, Roger
McCrindle, Robert


Galley, Roy
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maclean, David John


Goodlad, Alastair
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Gow, Ian
McQuarrie, Albert


Gower, Sir Raymond
Madel, David


Gregory, Conal
Major, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Malone, Gerald


Grist, Ian
Marlow, Antony


Ground, Patrick
Mates, Michael


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mather, Carol


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Maude, Hon Francis


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mellor, David


Hanley, Jeremy
Merchant, Piers


Harris, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Harvey, Robert
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Miscampbell, Norman






Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Steen, Anthony


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stern, Michael


Moynihan, Hon C.
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Neale, Gerrard
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Neubert, Michael
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Newton, Tony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Nicholls, Patrick
Sumberg, David


Normanton, Tom
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Norris, Steven
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Onslow, Cranley
Terlezki, Stefan


Osborn, Sir John
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Thornton, Malcolm


Pattie, Geoffrey
Thurnham, Peter


Pollock, Alexander
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Porter, Barry
Tracey, Richard


Powell, William (Corby)
Trippier, David


Powley, John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Viggers, Peter


Proctor, K. Harvey
Waddington, David


Raffan, Keith
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rhodes James, Robert
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walden, George


Rifkind, Malcolm
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Ward, John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Warren, Kenneth


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Watson, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Watts, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wheeler, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Whitfield, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Raymond


Shersby, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Silvester, Fred
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Winterton, Nicholas


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Speed, Keith
Wood, Timothy


Spencer, Derek
Yeo, Tim


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Noes:


Squire, Robin
Mr. Ian Lang and


Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Stanley, John

Question accordingly negatived.
It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order this day, to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the motion relating to Register of Members' Interests.
Amendment (d) proposed, in line 2, after 'Parliament', insert
'orders that in future no Member after his election shall take his seat unless he has first made a declaration to the Registrar;'.—[Mr. Campbell-Savours.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 174.

Division No. 31]
[10.13 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Ashdown, Paddy
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cormack, Patrick


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Barron, Kevin
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dalyell, Tam


Beith, A. J.
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dixon, Donald


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dormand, Jack


Bruce, Malcolm
Dubs, Alfred


Caborn, Richard
Duffy, A. E. P.


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Eadie, Alex


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Eastham, Ken


Cartwright, John
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Flannery, Martin





Forman, Nigel
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Forth, Eric
Nellist, David


Foster, Derek
O'Brien, William


Foulkes, George
Parry, Robert


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Patchett, Terry


Freud, Clement
Pendry, Tom


Gale, Roger
Pike, Peter


George, Bruce
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Godman, Dr Norman
Prescott, John


Golding, John
Raffan, Keith


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Randall, Stuart


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hardy, Peter
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Harris, David
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Haselhurst, Alan
Robertson, George


Hayes, J.
Rooker, J. W.


Haynes, Frank
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hicks, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hind, Kenneth
Shersby, Michael


Hirst, Michael
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Skinner, Dennis


Home Robertson, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Howells, Geraint
Snape, Peter


Hoyle, Douglas
Speed, Keith


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Spencer, Derek


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Squire, Robin


John, Brynmor
Stern, Michael


Johnston, Sir Russell
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Kennedy, Charles
Stott, Roger


Knowles, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Lawler, Geoffrey
Straw, Jack


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Tinn, James


Livsey, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wainwright, R.


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Wallace, James


McGuire, Michael
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Wareing, Robert


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Watts, John


McWilliam, John
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Madden, Max
Wilson, Gordon


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Maxton, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin



Maynard, Miss Joan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Meadowcroft, Michael
Mr. Nigel Spearing and


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Mrs. Ann Clwyd.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Durant, Tony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Emery, Sir Peter


Amess, David
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Ancram, Michael
Fookes, Miss Janet


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Fox, Marcus


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Batiste, Spencer
Freeman, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Goodlad, Alastair


Bright, Graham
Gorst, John


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gow, Ian


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Gregory, Conal


Budgen, Nick
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Butcher, John
Grist, Ian


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Ground, Patrick


Cash, William
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chope, Christopher
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hanley, Jeremy


Cockeram, Eric
Harvey, Robert


Cope, John
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Crouch, David
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hawksley, Warren






Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Hay ward, Robert
Pollock, Alexander


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Powley, John


Henderson, Barry
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hickmet, Richard
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Rhodes James, Robert


Holt, Richard
Rifkind, Malcolm


Howard, Michael
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hunter, Andrew
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Jackson, Robert
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Silvester, Fred


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lamond, James
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Lang, Ian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stanley, John


Lester, Jim
Steen, Anthony


Lightbown, David
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Lilley, Peter
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Sumberg, David


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lord, Michael
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Luce, Richard
Terlezki, Stefan


Lyell, Nicholas
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


McCrindle, Robert
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Thornton, Malcolm


Maclean, David John
Thurnham, Peter


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Tracey, Richard


McQuarrie, Albert
Trippier, David


Madel, David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Major, John
Viggers, Peter


Malone, Gerald
Waddington, David


Mates, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mather, Carol
Waldegrave, Hon William


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Walden, George


Mellor, David
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Merchant, Piers
Waller, Gary


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Ward, John


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Miscampbell, Norman
Warren, Kenneth


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Watson, John


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Wheeler, John


Neale, Gerrard
Whitfield, John


Newton, Tony
Whitney, Raymond


Nicholls, Patrick
Wilkinson, John


Normanton, Tom
Wolfson, Mark


Norris, Steven
Wood, Timothy


Onslow, Cranley
Yeo, Tim


Osborn, Sir John



Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Mr. Francis Maude.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have spent the past two hours debating honour and worth, and during the course of the debate, by a sedentary intervention and from the Dispatch Box, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) asked the Leader of the House whether there would be a free vote tonight. We were told by two Whips that there was to be a free vote. Tonight, the payroll voted against my amendment. That was not a free vote.

Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge of such things.
Before calling the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) to move amendment (e), I draw the

attention of the House to the fact that the word "relevant" has been inadvertently omitted before the word "gainful" in paragraphs 2 and 3. I am permitting the amendment to be moved in the corrected form.
Amendment (e) made, at end add
'and further agrees with its recommendations in the interests of greater openness, namely that:

1. those holding permanent passes as lobby journalists, as journalists accredited to the Parliamentary Press Gallery or for parliamentary broadcasting be required to register not only the employment for which they had received their pass, but also any other paid occupation or employment where their privileged access to Parliament is relevant;
2. holders of permanent passes as Members' secretaries or Members' research assistants be required to register any relevant gainful occupation which they may pursue other than that for which the pass is issued, and
3. Commons officers of All Party and Registered Groups be required to register the names of the officers of the Group, the source and extent of any benefits financial or in kind from outside sources which they may enjoy, together with any other relevant gainful occupation of any staff which they may have. Where a public relations agency provides the assistance, the ultimate client should be named;

and that copies of these Registers be placed in the Library for the use of Members'.—[Sir G. Johnson Smith.]
Amendment (g) made, at end add
and asks that the Committee considers further measures to strengthen disclosure provisions including the possibility of identifying interests in Parliamentary Questions, whether the amount of remuneration should be declared as well as the interest, and whether there is the need to consider constraints on voting.".—[Mr. Alan Williams.]
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests in the last Session of Parliament; welcomes the intention of the Committee stated in paragraphs 7 and 9 of the Report to keep under review both Parliamentary lobbying and the appropriate scope of the declaration and registration required of Members who are so engaged; emphasises that it is the personal responsibility of each Member to have regard to his public position and the good name of Parliament in any work he undertakes or any interests he acquires; confirms that the scope of the requirement to register remunerated trades, professions or vocations includes any remunerated activity in the fields of public relations and political and parliamentary advice and consultancy; and in particular agrees with the Select Committee in its statement in paragraph 10 of its Report in regard to the registration and declaring of clients that the services which require such registration and, where appropriate, declaration: "include as well as any action connected with any proceedings in the House or its Committees, the sponsoring of functions in the Palace, making representations to Ministers, Civil Servants and other Members, accompanying delegations to Ministers and the like"; and further agrees with its recommendations in the interests of greater openness, namely that:

1. those holding permanent passes as lobby journalists, as journalists accredited to the Parliamentary Press Gallery or for parliamentary broadcasting be required to register not only the employment for which they had received their pass, but also any other paid occupation or employment where their privileged access to Parliament is relevant;
2. holders of permanent passes as Members' secretaries or Members' research assistants be required to register any relevant gainful occupation which they may pursue other than that for which the pass is issued; and
3. Commons officers of All Party and Registered Groups be required to register the names of the officers of the Group, the source and extent of any benefits financial or in kind from outside sources which they may enjoy, together with any other relevant gainful occupation of any staff which they may have. Where a public relations agency provides the assistance, the ultimate


client should be named;

and that copies of these Registers be placed in the Library for the use of Members; and asks that the Committee considers further measures to strengthen disclosure provisions including the possibility of identifying interests in Parliamentary Questions, whether the amount of remuneration should be declared as well as the interest, and whether there is a need to consider constraints on voting.
It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on Supplementary Estimates, 1985–86 (Class II, Vote 7).

CLASS II, VOTE 7

Resolved,
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1986 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Overseas Development Administration) on the official United Kingdom Aid Programme including capital subscriptions, other contributions and payments under guarantees to certain multilateral development banks and other bodies; subscriptions and grants in aid to certain international and regional organisations; bilateral capital aid and technical co-operation; refugee and other relief assistance; the cost of in-house Scientific Units; assistance, including grants in aid, to certain UK based institutions and voluntary agencies; loans to the Commonwealth Development Corporation; and pensions and allowances in respect of overseas service.

Mr. Speaker: proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed to put pursuant to paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 19 (Consideration of Estimates).

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1985–26

Resolved,
That a further supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,622,415,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges for Defence and Civil Services which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1986, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 9.

ESTIMATES 1986–27 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £43,136,812,000, be granted to her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1987, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 6, 10 and 16.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. John Moore, Mr. Ian Stewart and Mr. Peter Brooke.

CONSOLIDATED FUND

Mr. John Moore accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1986 and 1987: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 18.]

Water Authorities (Return on Assets)

Dr. David Clark: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Water Authorities (Return on Assets) (No. 2) Order 1985 (S .I., 1985, No. 1805), dated 21st November 1985, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th November, be annulled.
This statutory instrument is quite reprehensible. The Government have clearly exposed in it the weakness of their monetarist approach. In essence, it is a tax on water. That tax has been deplored throughout the length and breadth of the country. We might have been forgiven if we had believed last summer that a tax on water might have solved all of the Government's problems. It is ironic that a Government who are dedicated to tax reductions should tax one of the basic necessities of life.
All hon. Members accept that the basic necessities of life—food and clothing—should not be taxed. Nevertheless, the Government have taxed heat in the form of gas and electricity. One wonders whether they have considered the taxation of air. Indeed, it might come to that eventually.
The statutory instrument might appear to be innocuous. The figures show a rate of return that varies from 1·5 per cent. to 1·73 per cent. Many hon. Members must think that this is a purely notional rate of return. However, the key point, which was so succinctly raised when this issue was debated earlier this year, is: a return on what? Many hon. Members, including Opposition Members, believe that the assets upon which this rate of return is based are false. They are based upon an incorrect accounting procedure. Therefore, 1·5 per cent. to 1·73 per cent. is a very much larger percentage that has to be paid by local authorities to the Exchequer.
The asset figure upon which it is based is not the historic valuation. We are referring to assets which in many cases are over 100 years old. To adopt the current cost accounting procedure as the valuation is a false and incorrect way to handle the issue. We believe that there should be a better way to work out the necessary rate of return.
Opposition Members oppose this concept, but there is wide condemnation of the Government's approach by a very wide sphere of interest, including bodies that are normally the Government's allies. However, increasingly of late I do not believe that the Confederation of British Industry can be counted as one of the Government's closest allies, especially over investment in the infrastructure. The CBI argues, rightly, that the Government's policy will put unnecessary burdens on to the shoulders of industry. As the value of the pound falls and fluctuates, Opposition Members believe that this is not the best time to start to impose additional costs upon industry.
Why are there dire warnings about this order? If one considers the best possible estimate of the effects of the order it is felt that there will be an increase in water charges that ranges between 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. However, most independent assessments predict that the increase will be much nearer 10 per cent. than 5 per cent. This follows a rise of 10 per cent. in the past financial year. It is the declared intention of the Government and the

water authorities that increases should not rise faster than the rate of inflation, yet here we have increases that will mean that domestic and industrial water users will be paying a tax direct to the Exchequer. That is a weak way of dealing with the accounting of the water boards. Indeed, the CBI goes as far as to say that it
can detract from investment in Britain".
It is useful to see what the Government's allies say on this issue. The CBI also states:
Whilst … it is essential to control borrowing effectively, the Government's policy of reducing water authority borrowing to zero has the effect of imposing on today's customers the cost of funding not only the provision of existing services but also providing assets which will last far into the future. It is sound business practice to borrow for long-life capital projects and water authorities should be allowed to do this".
That is the opinion of the Opposition. Given the outdated infrastructure in much of the water industry—in both the supply and sewerage sectors—it is ridiculous that the borrowing limit for some authorities is to be reduced to almost zero.
The Severn-Trent authority—not exactly an affluent area—is having its borrowing powers reduced to £2·5 million, and the South-West authority to £4 million. The correspondence that I have received from that authority shows that there is a continuing problem of sewage outflow on to the beaches which the authority wants to tackle but is unable so to do. Yet the Government are reducing its ability to borrow money.
If this trend continues the water authorities will be raising considerable amounts of surplus cash for the Exchequer while driving up charges to the users. These target rates of return are inappropriate and inapplicable.
The Water Act required the Government to establish consultative consumer panels. How many of those panels have been consulted, and how many of them support the Government? I have received a letter from the consumer panel for the Northumbrian area, which includes the most depressed part of England, with the highest level of unemployment and industrial inaction. That panel is worried about the effects of the Government's policies, and it writes that
any increase in charges has severe repercussions in an already disadvantaged area such as the North East Region and, according to reports in the press, we are again faced with a similar situation this year with a threatened rise of 10 per cent. in charges for Northumbrian Water's consumers".
That is against a background of an astronomic rise in water charges during the period of this Government's tutelage. Between 1979 and 1985—in the six years of this Government in power—the average increase has been 105 per cent. In some areas such as Northumbria it has been 137 per cent. That is inflation gone mad. It is time that the Government called off the monetarist approach and helped industries and consumers in areas that have suffered from these massive increases in water charges.
There is a strong feeling that water authorities should not be paying this tax to the Government but that, if there is excess capital, it should be invested in infrastructure to clear up sewage around our coast, for example. We should use the capital to ensure a regular and pure water supply.
It is astonishing that between one quarter and one third of water leaks are from mains pipes. In areas such as Liverpool, more than half of the water is lost before it reaches the consumer. That is wasteful and cannot be tolerated. There could be no more appropriate time than this to debate this order as we had the graphic example of


the burst water main in Leeds only last week, when 200,000 homes were without water and people were put to great personal inconvenience.
What happened in Leeds could happen in any of our major industrial towns. The Government have been warned by their own advisers and supporters. If the same happens to other towns, responsibility will lie squarely with the Government. The money should not go to the Exchequer but stay with water authorities to be reinvested in the infrastructure.
The problem with sewage is even worse. I am glad that Environment Ministers are present. What is happening to our rivers is quite scandalous. I can remember the efforts of a Conservative Government in the early 1970s to clean up our rivers. They did an extremely good job and the matter has been pursued by both parties. I am glad to say that it is now possible to catch trout and salmon right up the headstreams of the river Tyne. Since 1979, however, things have changed. In 1984, 709 km of rivers in England and Wales were declared grossly polluted. That is 16 per cent. worse than the figure for 1980. That considerable worsening applies to almost every region. No hon. Member can be proud of it.
The north-west has a
widespread problem of poor water quality and low pressures.
It has also suffered 600 major sewerage collapses each year. In Merseyside, the Secretary of State for Defence described matters as
an affront to the standards of a civilised society".
No less than 29 per cent. of Yorkshire's water fails to conform to the EC standard for drinking. That is especially true in the old wool towns of Halifax and Huddersfield. I can vouch for the fact that water often runs brown there.
The Severn-Trent area applied for derogations from EC standards. The Northumbria region is cutting the operational costs of its sewerage works. For example, in 1979, a 21·2 kg of pollution load per person was recorded. That had fallen to just over 16 kg by 1984. There were 21 km of polluted rivers in the northern region in 1979, which was a good record, but there were 36 km in 1984. What happens in these regions could apply to others.
We feel that the Government should be taking the issue seriously. We know that they are trying to put pressure on the water authorities to meet certain operating levels. They are trying to persuade the authorities to sell off their assets, their family silver, as it was so graphically described in another place.
I ask the Minister to give a specific answer to a question which I raised with him when environmental questions were most recently before the House. We understand that in many of the territories of the water authorities in the northern region, especially in the forest of Bowland of the North-West water authority, the moors belonging to the Northumbrian water authority and the moorland in Yorkshire and the Severn-Trent area, and the national parks, there has been de facto access for exercise on foot for generations. When the Minister orders authorities to sell off that land, will he give a guarantee to the House that he will ensure that the people from the northern industrial cities and from elsewhere will continue to have the right of access and exercise, which they have had for generations, without them having to prove 20 years' unchallenged access to retain it?

I understand that the Government's ultimate objective is to privatise the water industry. I wonder whether the Minister will confirm that. Will he bear in mind the comment of the CBI, which supports the Government's water privatisation plan? The CBI concludes that in the meantime boards of water authorities should be allowed greater freedom to manage their affairs, especially their pricing, financing and investment.
I look forward to hearing the Minister justifying this preposterous tax to those outside, to my right hon. Friends and to 34 Conservative Members who signed early-day motion 129, which calls upon the Government not to impose a tax on water. That is a view with which we concur and I urge the Government not to press ahead with this preposterous tax.

The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction (Mr. John Patten): No one inside or outside the House much likes paying bills. The payment of water bills seems to excite more controversy and upset than most other payments. That is largely because water seems to be a free item. Although it recycles itself endlessly, it costs a fair amount to purify and deliver, but the public seem to resent paying much for it. That is a feeling that runs deep. They resent even more having to pay for sewerage. Alas and alack, it is difficult and costly to deliver sometimes in some areas, and it has to be paid for. Sewage is hard to get rid of sometimes. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has rightly referred to the considerable task that faces us in the delivery of high-quality water, which is one of our aims. We aim also to get rid of lead from water by 1989 and to improve the standard of bathing water around our shores.
The rationale for seeking to improve the return on assets earned by the water authorities which deliver the water, get rid of the sewage, protect our coasts and look after land drainage, was brilliantly, clearly and explicitly set out in the admirable speech of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), in February. I recommend his speech to anyone who is interested in this critical issue. I particularly draw the attention of the House to his use of an excellent letter by Dr. Johannes Witteween in 1976 when the International Monetary Fund was called in to the country. My hon. Friend pointed out in his speech in February two intentions that lay behind the rate of return order. They remain the same today—first, to increase the investment that water authorities can make and, secondly, to do so with less public sector borrowing. I was pleased to note that when the chairman of Thames water announced his financial results for the first half of the year up to the year ending 30 September 1985, he took credit for the improvement in his authority's financial position, which has been to a large extent the result of those policies. Mr. Watts says that between September 1984 and September 1985 the authority repaid £50 million of its outstanding loans, so that it is on track to meet all its financial targets for the current year. That is a significant statement by the chairman of Thames water.
I want to look at the general picture, the rates of return and their relationship with investment, which was referred to by the hon. Member for South Shields. I know that that will interest many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It will be noted that the order laid on 25 November specifies rates of return which are, on average, a little lower than those predicted at the time of the speech of my hon. Friend


the Member for Eastbourne. We have found it possible to set a lower average rate of return—about 1·6 per cent. for 1986–87—and at the same time fund a higher level of investment than we thought was possible earlier in the year, without increasing the planned borrowing figure. That is a significant improvement.
We do not just expect, we know, that next year investment in the water industry, in water supply and sewerage, will reach a record level. Never in the history of the water industry will so much money be invested as in 1986–87 —about £900 million. It will soon be £1 billion a year. We have moderated the financial target. That will have an effect on the charges that we can expect. At the same time we have made it possible significantly to increase the levels of investment in water delivery, sewerage, flood protection, land drainage, coastal protection and the improvement in water quality, which is the concern of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Environment, Countryside and Local Government.
It is significant to realise that the increases in capital investment in the infrastructure of the water industry are part and parcel of an across-the-board increase in investment in infrastructure announced in the autumn statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There will be more money for housing, roads, hospital construction and renovation and also more money for water investment and sewerage investment.
As a result of the better-than-expected picture, we are able to set a lower than expected average rate of return. Water charges are likely to increase less than we expected six or seven months ago—by about 8 per cent. Water investment will increase by rather more—about 10 per cent. That is a considerable sum.
I have no doubt that that improvement will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by water consumers everywhere. I hope that it will be. The figures that I have given are, of course, national averages. They will vary regionally. I have good news for the hon. Member for South Shields. Northumbria Water will not find it too difficult to keep its charges this year close to the going rate of inflation. That is different from the gloomy picture that the hon. Gentleman gave us in his speech, and the predictions by his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) last year, when he said that Thames Water would impose a 30 per cent. increase in charges over three years. By how much is it increasing its charges this year? By 3 per cent. That is rather a different picture.
Even the South-West water authority, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is concerned, expects to increase its water rate by between 6 and 7 per cent. and at the same time substantially to increase the amount of investment that it hopes to make in that year to about £40 million overall. Nowhere in the country do I expect any water authority to have to raise prices by a full 10 per cent., although I expect that some will come close to it.
Efficiency improvements are helping to limit the charges that are necessary. I pay tribute to the water authorities and their chairmen for the substantial increases in efficiency and improvements in producitivity and manpower levels that they have achieved. That is so different from what we inherited in 1979.
Next year we shall review the water authorities' financial targets and their investment and borrowing

requirements before decisions are taken in respect of 1987–28 and subsequent years. We are also seriously considering the prospects for privatisation.
I answer the final question asked by the hon. Member for South Shields. Privatisation would mean reviewing every aspect of water authorities' finances. I note that no fewer than 70 of my discerning right hon. and hon. Friends have subscribed to an amendment to early-day motion 176, in support of privatisation. It is interesting to learn of that support from Conservative Members. The Government will note the strength of feeling reflected in that amendment to the early-day motion.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: In the past, profits have been made from the supply of water—indeed, that still occurs in some places. Does the Minister agree that profits have never been made from the transfer and disposal of sewage? As he is now taxing sewage disposal by way of contribution to the Consolidated Fund, whereas before the Consolidated Fund assisted sewage disposal, what is the philosophical reason for getting private profits from the disposal of sewage?

Mr. Patten: I am no philosopher, just a simple politician. [Interruption.] I welcome the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Should water privatisation go ahead, the integrated river basin management system would be vital. That system is one of this country's great achievements. It means water in and water out, water supplied, and sewage out. People who might be interested in the [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) wishes to interrupt from a sedentary position or intervene from an upright position to talk about the angling issues which I know concern him, I shall give way. In the meantime, I should like to finish my non-philosophical and entirely pragmatic response to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
Should any water authority be privatised at any stage in future, those people seeking to purchase any water authority will have to weigh the benefits of the sale of water and other services against the disbenefits of having to provide sewerage and other services. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I expect it is on the angling issue.

Mr. John Golding: No. May I draw the Minister's attention to the look of shock and horror on the face of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his hon. Friend the Minister for Environment. Countryside and Local Government when he referred to the cleaning of rivers as one of the great achievements. It was their expressions that amused me. It would be better if the Minister spoke with a mirror on a stick so that he could see the reaction on his side of the Chamber.

Mr. Patten: I now understand what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment meant when he said that it was an interesting experience to serve for many hours with the hon. Gentleman in Standing Committee on the British Telecommunications Bill. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not give way to him again during the course of my speech.
The hon. Member for South Shields asked four questions. First, he asked about footpaths. I understand how important it is in the lives of people in an industrial or any urban centre, south or north, to get out into the


country. Fabian fell walking is also very much part of Labour party tradition and we do not want to do anything to get in the way of that. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that water authorities which dispose of their lands will dispose of them with whatever rights of access the public may already have. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that. Rather than debating the issue across the Dispatch Box now, I would prefer to write him a long letter setting all this out in some detail in an attempt to satisfy him. I have given the assurance that I have given in carefully worded terms and if it is wrong there will be all hell to pay for the people who wrote it.

Dr. David Clark: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and I shall not trespass on his time. We are not only talking about footpaths but about de facto access. As he has guaranteed us that access, I know that everyone will be grateful for that gesture.

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman had better listen again to these carefully composed words. Water authorities which dispose of their lands will dispose of them with whatever rights of access—"rights" is rather different from de facto access, as the hon. Gentleman will doubtless accept—the public may have.
Secondly, let me deal with back-door taxation. There is nothing wrong at all with a rate of return of between 1 and 2 per cent. on water industry assets. Any business would expect to earn considerably more. Water authority debt is pretty formidable at the moment. It is about £4·5 billion. Interest charges take up no less than a quarter of all revenue from customers. That is a high percentage. Few businesses would be happy with that sort of interest burden. Some authorities have started to repay past debts, thereby reducing their interest rate liabilities. That strikes me as good husbandry and sound management.
The hon. Gentleman's third question related to current cost accounting. I know that that is a somewhat controversial issue. I am no accountant by training. The pros and cons were set out in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne earlier this year in February and I can do no better than repeat what he had to say then on why we think that historic cost accounting has a couple of weaknesses.
The first reason is that it fails to reflect the effect of inflation on the value of assets whose lives can exceed 100 years, which are still doing valuable service and which have to be replaced. Secondly, we must somehow take into account the fact that in 1973 significant numbers of assets were transferred to the new water authorities at zero value. The 18th report of the Committee of Public Accounts, published earlier this year, commented in an interesting way on the monitoring and control of water authorities and explicitly endorsed the employment of current cost accounting in setting financial targets for the industry. It is an important debate, which we shall probably never resolve. I would not claim that this or any other Government have yet found the exact fair mechanism for charging for water and all related services. We have simply tried to do the best we could within the current cost framework.
Fourthly, I shall say a word about Leeds. There has been a great deal of concern about the loss of water supply in Leeds during the past week. We were lucky that we had the Army prepared and ready to go in to Leeds to do such

sterling service. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was in Leeds on Friday. Events there are now under control and there are no substantial problems. I commend the co-operation of all the agencies and recognise the long hours worked by the staff of the water authority, the fire service and the Army, who came in at short notice.
The burst was unusually severe, but the hon. Gentleman should be a little more cautious before he says, "Water mains burst in Leeds equals the proving of the case that there is under-investment in the water industry." That is simply not the case. The chairman of the Yorkshire water authority, who is holding a full inquiry into the matter, said that the cause of the burst may have been earth movements construction work or all sorts of other possibilities. It is wrong to pick an example of one major burst and suggest that that proves that there is not sufficient investment.
I do not want to indulge in across-the-Dispatch-Box discussions about records—indeed, that would be fruitless now that we have been in government for six and a half years. We take pride in what we have done. During those six and a half years, we have increased investment in the water industry by 30 per cent. in real terms, taking into account inflation, which compares favourably with the 50 per cent. cut imposed by the last Labour Government. By all means help the debate about infrastructure, but be a little cautious before taking on the Government on their record. We have increased investment while the last Labour Government cut investment.
The order is a further step in the progress of our policy of strengthening the water authorities so that they can discharge their responsibilities to the public effectively and cheaply. The industry is no longer a poor relation of local government, and everyone recognises that. Its reorganisation in 1974 on the basis of river basins has provided the right technical framework. With our encouragement, it now has sound finance and competent, commercially orientated management. I hope to see the day when this evolution can take a step forward and the authorities will have the benefit of being set free to serve the public as independent viable businesses in their own right.

11·8 pm

Mr. William O'Brien: The Minister should make inquiries about what people think of the charges being imposed upon water consumers because of the taxes that the Government are imposing upon water authorities. The wrath expressed last year demonstrated the general feeling about that, which has been demonstrated again this year.
We must remember that a number of people on fixed incomes and pensions will suffer the most from the 10 per cent. increase in charges that faces 4·5 million people in Yorkshire. Those in the lower income group and with lower rateable value properties will, because of standing charges, face an increase in excess of 10 per cent. The Minister should have regard to this imposition on water authorities.
The debate was initiated because of the impact of the Government's financial policy on water charges this year. The Minister has confirmed that current charges will range from between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent., but in many cases the charge could be more. In addition to the


pensioners and those on fixed incomes, the working poor, who have to rely on Government incentives to take low-paid jobs, will suffer the greatest hardship. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said that the increase in water charges, which is greater than the increase in inflation, will not be welcomed by consumers. It will not be welcome in any budget, especially that of industry.
In Yorkshire, the food processing, chemical, textile, paper and brewing industries will be hit especially hard. The fact that the increase in water charges will be higher than the increase in inflation does nothing to sustain the shrine at which the Government worship. The increase of 10 per cent.—more, in some cases—will hit industries in Yorkshire in particular and throughout Britain in general.
The CBI, which usually rallies behind the Government, has said that the high water charges, in addition to the charges for other services, such as gas and electricity, will have adverse effects on international competitiveness and might detract from investment in Britain. I hope that the Government will have regard to such statements. I believe that it is generally accepted by hon. Members and those outside that the Government are proposing a tax on water and sewerage. If we are to be honest with the consumers, we should make that point abundantly clear. The Government are taxing by the back door. Industry will have to pay the greatest amount of tax. The Government's policy of reducing water authorities' borrowing to zero will impose on consumers the cost not only of funding existing services but of providing assets that will last far into the future. The CBI has said that it is sound business practice to borrow for long-life capital projects and that water authorities should be allowed to do so. The Minister has said that any sound business organisation would take certain action in certain circumstances. He should note that that is the advice that business people give to the Government. Industrialists say that it is sound policy to borrow for long-term projects.
We still have private water companies. What would be said if they wished to impose a 10 to 12 per cent. increase? Would they be accused of acting illegally? Here we have public water authorities imposing extra charges on consumers. There could be said to be double standards, with one set for customers of private water authorities, and another for customers of public water authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said that two authorities would this year have their borrowing reduced to zero. He referred to the Severn-Trent and the South-West authorities. It seems that the Southern authority will not be permitted to borrow at all, while the Thames authority will be required to raise £85 million more than it requires to cover all its outgoings, including its capital investment programme.
I have with me the report of the consumer consultative committee for the Thames water authority—the report related to the corporate plan for 1984—in which the committee came out firmly in support of that authority's policy and against the Government's policy of imposing financial targets at a level leading to the premature repayment of debt. One member of the consultative committee argued that investment was more important than the early repayment of debt. While, on the one hand, the Minister holds up Government policy as an example

of the way in which water authorities should operate, on the other, the body representing water consumers in the Thames area is against Government policy.
It is right to ask what support the Government have received for their policy from consumer consultative committees. I have checked with the four consumer bodies in Yorkshire, especially about the Government's pricing policy for water authorities, and it is clear that the consumers have no support for the Government.
I recently asked the Minister to explain the procedure if consumers made representations through a local consultative committee—remembering that no consumer can now attend water authority meetings—to the local water authority and the matter could not be resolved. Replying, the Minister told me that in the event of a stalemate, the complainant would have the right to complain to the local ombudsman.
In asking that question, I was not concerned with maladministration but with the whole issue of pricing and consumer complaints. After all, a consumer would not need to go through the consultative committee procedure to approach the local ombudsman. I take it from the Minister's reply, therefore, that, as constituted, consultative committees have no real responsibilities. They exist in name only. They have no power or authority. I hope that something will be done to ensure that consumers are properly represented. If the consultative committees are not operating successfully water authority meetings should be open to allow the public to attend and see what is taking place.
It is claimed that the water authorities should be allowed greater freedom to manage their affairs, in particular, with regard to their pricing, financing and investment policies. That was one of the principles and intentions of the Water Act, 1983. I hope that the Minister will accept that water authorities should have greater freedom.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said that there was wide interest in and objection to the Government's water pricing policy. That is reflected by the number of organisations and individuals who oppose the extra taxes being imposed upon water authorities.
The Minister referred to the incident in Leeds. I represent part of Leeds and that incident plainly aroused a great deal of interest. The Minister said that Mr. Jones, the chairman of the Yorkshire water authority, has instigated an internal inquiry. Should there not be a public inquiry into such an occurrence? My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said that there is a danger that the Leeds incident is the first of a number that could occur because of the age of the assets and the way that water authorities have to make do with them.
The chairman of the Yorkshire water authority has more than once asked that the authority be allowed to borrow more money to solve the problems that are developing with water and sewage pipes. What would happen if a major sewage pipe fractured? The position would he much more serious and the problem would be much worse than what happened in Leeds. That is why something must be done to improve capital expenditure on such major assets.
I hope that the Minister will take note of the problems that exist. It is no use burying our heads in the political sand and saying that the problems do not exist. They do. I hope that the chairman of the Yorkshire water authority will allow every word of the inquiry's findings to be made public. If not, I shall be asking for a public inquiry.
Reference has also been made to the amount of water going to waste. In some places, 25 to 30 per cent. of the water pumped at source goes to waste before it reaches the consumer. That is because many of the pipes are like sieves. They want replacing. Water authorities are asking to be allowed to replace them by borrowing money or financing the repairs from capital.
I make the point which I have made more than once—I also made it in the Public Accounts Committee—that domestic consumers pay twice for waste water. We could save 25 per cent. of the cost of energy used to pump and raise water from the ground or reservoirs if we could arrest the waste of water. I hope that the Minister will take that important point on board.
Finally, water authorities have said that they oppose privatisation [HON. MEMBERS: "Which authorities?"] Yorkshire water authority and others, and consumer organisations are on record as saying that they oppose privatisation. If the Minister has not seen the records, they can be provided. At this time last year only Thames water authority said that privatisation should be considered, while the rest suggested that it would not be in the best interests of the industry. If the Minister is not aware of that, he should take on board some of the reports of consumer consultative bodies in the various water authority areas. Some water authority members are speaking plainly against privatisation.
The Minister did not refer to the glaring question of meters. In view of the report, I would have expected—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Member is going a little wide of the order. He should stick to the return on the assets of the industry.

Mr. O'Brien: This is important to the return on the assets because, if meters are installed, they must be financed. The report suggests that there should be experimental areas, which, if the report is implemented, must be financed. Therefore, it is important that the Minister makes a statement tonight on that subject. Any decision about the financial provisions of water authorities will influence that. As no statement was made, I doubt the validity of the report that the press suggest is now available. For that reason that subject is relevant to our debate and I appeal to the Minister to comment on it. Millions of people, some of whom are in favour and some of whom are against metering, will be affected.
I remind that Minister that 4·5 million people in Yorkshire will follow tonight's discussion. Last year they faced up to a 15 per cent. increase in water charges, and it will be the same again this year. That is far above the rate of inflation. If increases are caused by inflation, the level of water charge increases throughout the country should be at the inflation rate.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Some hon. Members will remember that this is not the first time that I have disagreed with my Front Bench on water charges. I have listened with interest to the Opposition Front Bench, and it would be complete hypocrisy if the Opposition did not carry their prayer to a Division tonight, which I presume they will do.
We are faced with increases in charges in excess of inflation. The inflation rate is about 5·5 per cent.

Moreover, there is no rebate on the charges for people with small incomes, as there was prior to 1973. This is a form of taxation which is imposed behind closed doors by the water authorities, and the Government are imposing a rate of return which no business, however businesslike, would conceive of practising on the basis of a real valuation of its so-called assets. Mile after mile of rotten pipes leak like a sieve and stain the water so that people cannot even wash clothes in it. The book value that such nonsense has is then expected to give a return that may look deceptively modest when we see the figures in the order.
My hon. Friend the Minister has not given any reason for the disparities in the rates of return that he wants the House to pray against, such as the South-West water authority, together with Northumberland, at 1·73, compared with 1·5 in the north-west, when much of the provision that the south-west has to make is for the rest of the country coming on holiday in a dry season, in terms of water collection. That is why there was a rate equalisation system for water charges from the previous Administration across the country.
We now have water authorities alternatively exhorted to behave as if they are businesses and then forbidden to do so. No business would use current earnings for a capital investment programme of the kind necessary to replace the rotten water distribution system. [Interruption.] If there is zero borrowing, one does it either out of current earnings or not at all—unless my hon. Friend is suggesting that it should not be done at all.

Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not say a word.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Unless he is suggesting that, that is what one would have to do.

Mr. Holt: I said nothing.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend was speaking from a sedentary position, even if he did not realise it.

Mr. Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I find it wrong that any hon. Member should attack another hon. Member for speaking when he has not said a word.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I withdraw what I said, although I did not name my hon. Friend. Another of my hon. Friends spoke. However, if my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) chooses to wear the cap, he is entitled to.
No business operating as a business would replace long-life capital assets of this kind on zero borrowing. The Government Front Bench should make up its mind whether it wishes the water authorities to behave as a business would behave or not.
It is not just the provision of water or the clearing away of sewage, not just the checking of the coast line and flood prevention on water courses that are involved. Other facilities provided by the water authorities are outside their statutory duty but within their statutory competence. Those are not business decisions but fairly political decisions, but the public are not admitted to the meetings at which they are taken. If my hon. Friend the Minister feels that I might have taken that view rather earlier. I can point out that I voted for an amendment when the Bill was going through the House to the effect that the public should be present.
The order will raise personal costs and industrial costs by more than they need to be raised. The water-consuming


industries, which are often found in peripheral areas, often have major cost drawbacks anyway, because they are by definition at a considerable distance from their market. Therefore, they have high transport costs. If I may have the ear of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction—

Mr. John Patten: My hon. Friend has it.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: —I shall draw to his attention the fact that the paper industry is in fierce competition with both European Community countries and those countries that were members of the European Free Trade Association where there are still cross-trade barrier permissions that put our industry at a severe disadvantage. The Government are powerless to remedy that. However, having ensured that, compared with our continental competitors some of the energy price disparities have been reduced so that in many cases energy costs are now comparable, the Government must not bump up water charges, which would mean that those industries that need to use a lot of water, or that need to make use of a lot water and then return it to their productive processes, are rendered uncompetitive yet again.
For those reasons, as well as many others that hon. Members may wish to deploy in the short time remaining for this debate, I shall vote for the prayer.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Tonight's events show that we have not quite done away with the controversy in February when the matter was last before the House. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) who is, as it were, the shadow behind tonight's proceedings was then exposed to what can only be described as an attack from all sides. He would probably have been exposed to even greater attack had the matter not been delayed for some months while palliative measures were discussed. The underlying reasons for that attack remain. Although matters have moved on a little, valid objections remain and I want to allude briefly to them.
I share many of the views of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). We are dealing with a form of taxation that has been arrived at in secret by authorities appointed by the Minister. For obvious historical reasons, people find this particularly objectionable. This has happened at a time when we need greater investment in the water industry because its assets are coming increasingly quickly to the end of their useful life. In many cases they are now between 60 and 100 years old, and increasingly they are leaking. The industry says that it wants to put the matter right and to do a good job. It has never acceded to the Government's view that it is appropriate that the Government should impose an additional return on assets requirement.
The fundamental objection is that the money that is to be raised from the consumer, which is always raised with some reluctance, should be translated directly into the Treasury coffers to deal with the general economic policy of the Government instead of being applied to the needs of the water industry, which are as great as those of any other part of the infrastructure.
The Minister did not deal with the fact that lying behind all this is the spectre of privatisation. It is well known that the Government are contemplating privatisation, and it is

apparent from the Minister's reply that the Government are seeking to increase the appeal of the industry so that it will be easier to hive it off. However, they are reducing the industry's ability to carry out urgent tasks. May I remind the Minister of what I understand the Water Authorities Association would most like in terms of a water policy, because some of the things that the Minister hinted at do not quite deliver the goods. First, they want a system of proper objectives to motivate not only chairmen but also all officers and employees, so that—

Mr. John Patten: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make another related point so that he can deal with them together. The authorities need objectives that reveal themselves in terms of financial planning.
This order is the second of a series, of which last year's was the breakthrough first order. None the less, from what the Minister has said, there is no clear planning basis for the figures for the coming years. The industry wants to simplify its system and to reduce Government interference and imposition so that it can reduce its charges. It also wants a series of targets for more than one year ahead, yet the Minister avoided doing just that. The industry would like targets for three years, but the Minister has not done that because before they are up he anticipates privatisation—there is no secret about that and his gestures suggest it—even though that is not the necessary conclusion of the road down which we are going. In any event, it is not the only helpful way of assisting the industry.
Irrespective of the Government's privatisation plans, with which I disagree, it would be helpful if the targets were spelled out now so that the water industry can see what is required of it and plan accordingly.
The industry would also like to have flexibility in raising finance. It does not want to charge the substantial increases that it is now being forced to charge. In some areas that was 10 per cent. last year and 10 per cent. this year. That is way above the rate of inflation, and it imposes an additional, severe burden with no rebate for those who are often the least able to pay. Although this is not an enormous part of a person's budget, it is a substantial and relevant part. It is taxation above the rate of inflation with no parallel increase in the service provided.
I understand that the chairman of the Thames water authority is an advocate and supporter of privatisation, but last year he complained vociferously about the Government's imposition of these targets. He would argue that his authority's operating costs are largely fixed, that it has a large revenue base, that it has done a lot to reduce costs and that it is not necessary for the Government to require this return on assets.
There are also problems for the Welsh water authority because of the difficulty of marrying the effect of the return on assets order with the attempts to make the system more just as between the high-rated and low-rated authorities. That results in a double imposition.
Equally, other regions are concerned that present policy means that they are not able to obtain proper expenditure, given this imposed additional taxation. The North-West water authority is among them, and I understand that it has tried to get the rate of return reduced because it does not believe that charges—14 per cent. last year, of which 9 per cent. was due entirely to this order—should be increased by anything like that amount this year.
Given that there is such a clawback of money for the Revenue, one must ask whether the use to which it is put is justifiable. That brings me to a specific point about the North-West water authority's liability for the victims of the Abbeystead pumping station disaster. The Minister will be aware that the explosion last May resulted in substantial loss of life, including three employees of the water authority and injury to many others. Every hope has been given that some of the water authority's assets would be used to alleviate the pain and suffering of the victims. So far, however, they have had only £20,000—£10,000 from the North-West water authority almost immediately and another £10,000 last week.
The Department of Employment Minister who went up to St. Michael's in Lancashire on behalf of the Government said that it seemed that the water authority was liable, as it would have been liable even if a tramp had been blown up while asleep on the authority's premises. Parliamentary answers to questions properly asked by Lancashire Members of Parliament have made it clear that Government funds were available. I do not mind who pays, but there have been precedents such as Bradford and Brussels, which could come to the rescue now to meet the hardship of those who are suffering.
The latest estimate is that the first realistic date at which to expect court money is next year. The Minister replied to a question asked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal party recently, so he will know that the families of the victims are impatient. The water authority has substantial assets and it has been said that the funds for compensation exist, but no money is forthcoming. It is just this type of failure to use assets at times of need which justifies complaint. I hope that the Minister will direct attention to that case to achieve a satisfactory result before the end of the court case.
I hope also that the needs of the old and others who find water charges an imposition will be met. That can be achieved only by the Government reducing their charges. The water industry should be allowed to assess what it needs and impose charges accordingly. The Government should not tighten the screw by adding to charges which consumers cannot control because those who make the decisions are not accountable to them.

Mr. Roger Freeman: I accept the order because, in present circumstances, it presents an acceptable balance between raising finance for capital investment from the revenue cash flow of the industry, which is what a return on assets is all about, and the external financing limits in aggregate, which is what the public expenditure White Paper is all about.
There are three developments, however, which should give the House cause for some optimism, that we will not have to consider such orders in the future. The three developments are directly relevant to the order because it is about financing capital investment. The first is the new development in Anglian Water—my region—of the introduction of private capital at Flag Fen. Introducing private capital through franchising or joint venture obviates the need for capital investment financed through the PSBR. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will pursue that important development in conjunction with the Treasury.
The second development applies in the medium term. I am a strong supporter of privatisation and hope that it comes in region by region. There are many private water authorities and it is perfectly reasonable to privatise each of the major water authorities one by one and for them to operate under regulation just as many hundreds already do.
The third development is metering. We have recently received the report of the Watts committee. Compulsory residential metering would reduce demand by perhaps 10 or 15 per cent. and therefore obviate capital investment in some authority areas. That means that an authority may not need to raise finance for investment in new reservoirs. The second important value of residential metering is that it is important as a matter of equity.
In the long run, we are all in favour of permitting the industry to make its own decisions about the necessary levels of capital investment. In this instance I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Only the industry can make these decisions, and it can do so only if it can participate in the full play of market forces.

Mr. John Golding: For many of us, water is not for industrial purposes. For Conservative Members, water is often not for drinking. For my right hon. and hon. Friends, water is not for bathing; they prefer asses' milk generally. As everyone knows, water has only one real use, and that is to provide fishing.
I shall address myself to angling. The angler is in danger of greater exploitation by water authorities because of the imposition of a rate of return. I have been told that I must not abuse my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) within the terms of the order, so instead I shall speak in support of the Midland Federation of Fly Fishers, which is concerned about the privatisation of reservoirs.
I am glad that the Secretary of State for the Environment is not present, because he would suffer from shock on hearing what I am about to say. I do not oppose all privatisation of reservoirs. In fact, I am the president of the Tittesworthe fishing club, which has experienced privatisation. The club has taken over the reservoir and the fishing has improved since it was under the control of the Severn-Trent authority. Likewise, in the area of the Anglian authority, Ravensthorpe fishery was privatised last year. It has come under good ownership and control and it is extremely successful.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain how he relates these matters to the substance of the order, which is return on assets.

Mr. Golding: That is obvious, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If money is lost running a fishery, the rate of return is affected. If money is made running a fishery, that obviously relates to the rate of return. My remarks are addressed to whether profit is made or not, and I believe that they are relevant.
The Midland Federation of Fly Fishers is worried always about rates of return on capital, and it is concerned about the privatisation of Rutland, Graffham and Pitsford reservoirs. Why is that? The federation believes that privatisation of large reservoirs under the control of the Anglian authority will be harmful. The ornithological,


boating and angling interests have come together successfully and they have learnt to live together. It has been possible for anglers to enjoy fishing on the reservoirs. The federation is worried that the Anglian authority, thinking that it can maximise revenue by privatising, will privatise vast reservoirs. It claims that they will not be so successful as the small reservoirs. So vast are some of the reservoirs that it will require multi-million pound companies to take control of them. The fishermen are concerned that when that happens they will be taken over by entertainment and marina companies and that there will be all sorts of sports such as water ski-ing, which are incompatible with angling. The Midland Federation of Fly Fishers thinks, and I agree with it, that it would be dreadful for national angling institutions such as Rutland, Graffham and to a lesser extent, Pitsford, to be privatised in that way.
As the international fly fishing competition is to be held at Rutland and Graffham in 1987, it would be a disaster if people came from abroad to fish and saw water skiers on the water in the interest of maximising revenue. That brings me within the order once again.
The anglers are most upset about what the Anglian water authority seems to he doing to pave the way. The authority increased the cost for two anglers to go fishing at Rutland to £33. The anglers found that expensive but were prepared to accept it because there are very good power boats at Rutland. The Anglian water authority then extended those charges under financial pressure from the Government. That brings me within the order again. The authority then extended them to the other fisheries at Graffham and Pitsford. At Graffham the boats are ancient and not worth the price that was being charged.
The water authority was killing off the business. Anglers are generally very generous men and few of them are cynical, but they began to think that the authority was trying to kill off the business to have an excuse to privatise it. Those generous people, with rarely a suspicious thought in their heads, began to suspect that of the water authority.
The anglers have other grievances. They believe that the charging of £25,000 or £30,000 overheads on the fishery accounts has been done to pave the way for the privatisation of the vast waters. I am speaking on behalf of the anglers of Anglia; we do not want that. We want national institutions to remain national. It is acceptable for the smaller waters that will he managed as fisheries to be privatised, particularly if they will have to close.
I shall talk about the wider issue of privatisation.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: One minute to go.

Mr. Golding: One minute is nothing when we are dealing with angling and privatisation.
It is certain that there is tremendous opposition among anglers to the privatisation of water. That does not just apply to the ordinary common working-class fisherman. In the past few months I have been surprised at meetings of the anglers' co-operative association, the anti-pollution body and other angling organisations that there is a tremendous fear that privatisation of water will come. They think that privatisation will mean a reduced quality of angling. The Minister must not under-estimate the opposition to the privatisation of water among those who depend on water for their pleasure.
I regret, particularly in the absence of—
It being one and half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the debate stood adjourned, pursuant to order this day.

Taxis (Heathrow)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]

Mr. Vivian Bendall: I declare an interest in the matter, in that I represent the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association. My interest is declared in the Register of Members' Interests.
Not long ago we had a meeting with the Minister, for which I thank him, when we said that members of the taxi trade have been extremely concerned about the 50p tariff proposed by the British Airports Authority for the feeder park at Heathrow. I have also been in correspondence with Sir Norman Payne of the British Airports Authority to ask him to reconsider his decision about a charge for entrance to the feeder park. Unfortunately, when I wrote to him several weeks ago, he was not prepared to do so.
I should give the House a little background to how this unfortunate situation arose. Some time ago it was realised by the airport authority that there were problems with the taxi ranks at the airport, and taxis were using airport roads and getting in the way of the normal flow of traffic. Perhaps with more forward planning, taking into account the increase of the number of passengers going through the airport, that could have been realised some years ago and adequate provision made for it. However, that was not so and adequate provision was not made.
The airport authority rightly, to try to resolve the problem, suggested that taxis should be put through a feeder park. Some years ago, in conjunction with the licensed trade, talks took place on having a feeder park. General agreement was reached and certain aspects of it were contained in the 1983 byelaws. However, at the outset there was no mention of any charge to be made at that time or in the near future. Now drivers are being penalised by being charged 50p to enter the feeder park.
On the average Heathrow to central London run, depending on what part of London it is, on the present tariff, the taxi driver is likely to get £17 or £18. The problem arises when a cab from the feeder park has to go on a more local call such as in Isleworth or Hounslow, which are quite close to the airport. If the fare is fairly low, 50p for entering the feeder park is a considerable sum. The taxi can come back to the front of the feeder rank after a short journey only after it has been to some specific hotels adjacent to the airport. There will be confusion in the feeder park as cab drivers who have been waiting there for a considerable time will not be too happy about other taxis coming in front of them, even if they have been on a short journey.
The LTDA has informed me that the likely cost to the taxi trade of a feeder park charge of 50p is about £40,000 a month. There have been problems at Heathrow. There has been a boycott of the airport by a number of taxi drivers. The LTDA has supported that boycott. In such a situation, it is the public who are liable to be the losers.
The Minister should be made aware that since the boycott began several anomalies have arisen. Mini-cabs have been exploiting the situation to great effect. Cases have been reported to the LTDA and, in turn, to me of mini-cabs which have in the last few weeks charged tourists and visitors as much as £97 to come to central London from Heathrow. In one case a trip to the Hilton

hotel cost £60. Some mini-cab drivers have suggested that if they take more than one passenger to central London the charge will be £20 for each passenger.
The English tourist board has taken an interest in the matter and it wrote to Mr. Feigen of the LTDA on 12 December. That letter pointed out that its infrastructure committee was extremely concerned about the 50p parking charge that was to be levied at the airport. It believed and hoped that it would not result in the deterioration of the taxi service and asked for the LTDA 's advice on that. A copy of that letter was forwarded to Mr. Bell of the British Airports Authority.
Although the trade is boycotting Heathrow, it has acted in a proper and responsible manner. In other countries when such a situation has arisen there has been, quite wrongly, the blocking of airports—a ridiculous attitude towards the problem. The LTDA wishes it to be made clear that it would have nothing to do with such action because it would have serious consequences for emergency services in the event of an unfortunate accident.
There have been meetings today between the British Airports Authority and the members of the taxi trade interested in the problem. However, I am afraid that no agreement has been reached. The British Airports Authority's suggestion was that perhaps charges should be held until the end of January. That would only put off the situation for a few weeks. I can understand the British Airports Authority's concern with Christmas coming given the number of passengers going through Heathrow. Naturally it is concerned about the passengers and how they can disperse from the airport and get to it.
Another suggestion is to hold charges until May and in the meantime a committee could be set up to try to find ways of passing the charges on in a combined commercial venture. I do not understand whether that involves the trade because I have not yet had an opportunity to consider the finer points.
A member of the LTDA has asked for a judicial review, and I understand that that has been granted. I should have thought that it would have been prudent and sensible of the British Airports Authority to have held or withdrawn its charges pending the judicial review. That would stop the boycott immediately and would give time for the judicial review to be heard and for a decision to be reached.
I understand that in future legislation the British Airports Authority is liable to be privatised. I support the Minister in that. But what is liable to happen to charges on feeder parks once privatisation takes place? Will there be any control of increases? To some degree that trade has been let down.
Some years ago British Rail tried to introduce charges on taxi ranks outside stations. It decided that it was not practical and withdrew the proposition. Now that the BAA has introduced charges, I can envisage British Rail reconsidering its position. If it introduced charges, that would increase costs to the general public.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is responsible for the tariffs charged to the public by taxi drivers. It is rather unfair that their tariffs are controlled in one area, but in another area they must face this increase. The Minister was asked to consider an increase in the tariff. I can understand his problem, because how can we separate taxis coming from Heathrow from taxis in London?
The BAA should reconsider the matter. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will intervene and will discuss the issue with the BAA. I understand that the original direction may have come from his Department, which is interested in increasing revenue from airports. I do not understand why that increase should be to the detriment of the taxi trade.
The taxi trade in London is an integral part of the transport system of Greater London. It is important because it is properly controlled and properly licensed and its drivers have to pass a knowledge test, unlike many parts of the private car hire system. In those circumstances, it is not fair to penalise those who are running a good service as an integral part of London's transport system. I hope that the matter will be reconsidered. I believe that it can be resolved—and, I hope, resolved before the continuing boycott at Heathrow really begins to affect the public.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) for raising this matter, and so giving the House the opportunity to consider the real issues that lie behind it.
The facts of the matter may be simply stated. The British Airports Authority incurs identifiable costs of some £500,000 associated with the marshalling of taxis at Heathrow. After extensive consultation with the London taxi trade, The authority decided to recover that cost by means of a levy of 50p on each vehicle entering the taxi feeder park. That charge was introduced on 27 November, since which date the taxi trade has boycotted the feeder park. I am sure that my hon. Friend will correct me if that is not his understanding of the position.
Before discussing the implications of this, I must state at the outset that the decision to introduce that charge was an administrative matter for the British Airports Authority acting under the Airports Authority Act 1975. It was not something for which I or my colleagues were responsible. I shall not comment on whether the authority had the vires to make that charge as I understand that this specific question is now the subject of a judicial review.
As I see it, this matter gives rise to two relatively distinct questions. The first is whether it was right for the authority to levy this charge at all, and the second is whether such a charge should be recovered from taxi passengers in the form of a surcharge on the fare for hirings made at the airport. I see my hon. Friend indicating that I have identified the key issues.
Taking the first question of whether a charge should be levied, I think that it is common ground that the authority has the power to provide these facilities for marshalling taxis at Heathrow. Indeed, under the 1975 Act it has a duty
to provide such services and facilities as are necessary or desirable at its airports".
I think that it is also accepted that the provision of these particular facilities costs in the order of £500,000 per annum, which has to be met from one source or another. At the moment it is a charge on the general revenue that the authority receives from its activities—that is, it is primarily recovered from aircraft landing charges.
We know that there is a cost and how it is being met. What are the effects? First, it makes flying into Heathrow a little more expensive for the airlines, but they pass that cost on to their passengers. Every passenger passing

through Heathrow is making a contribution toward meeting the cost of marshalling taxis—a taxi tax on all the users of the airport. It seems to us not wholly unreasonable that the charge should be on the taxi operators who benefit from it.
A taxi charge on all the users might be justified on social grounds, but I do not think that my hon. Friend was claiming that the London taxi trade was a disadvantaged group in need of social support. The closest analogy that I can find is with the road haulage industry, which meets through taxes and duties the cost of the damage that its vehicles do to the roads. No one has yet claimed that we should increase excise duty on all vehicles to relieve the industry of this burden. The costs are identifiable. The road haulage industry gives rise to them, and it pays. This is the same principle that is being applied in the present case.
Let us examine the argument that the taxi trade is providing a service to the airport authority by carrying "its" passengers and should not be charged for doing so. But the shops in the terminal buildings are also providing a service and it is not said that they should not pay for the privilege of serving this lucrative market. It could be said that that is not a fair analogy. It has been asserted that London taxis have a right to ply for hire throughout London, including Heathrow. However, the airport is on private land and bus operators, who are licensed to ply for hire anywhere in Great Britain, pay a fee towards meeting the costs that they give rise to at the airport. That is directly analogous to the position of taxi drivers.
Of course the taxi trade does not like paying for something that it has previously had for nothing—I understand why my hon. Friend raised this matter of behalf of the taxi drivers—but I am afraid that all the logic lies in favour of putting these costs on those who benefit—the taxi drivers who choose to ply their trade at the airport.

Mr. Bendall: Will my hon. Friend concede that shops at Heathrow do not have the prices at which they sell their goods controlled?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend has made an important point, to which I shall come in a moment.
That brings me to the second strand of the argument—that, if the taxi trade is to bear this cost, it should be permitted to pass it on to passengers in the form of a surcharge on the fare. My hon. Friend claims that it is totally unreasonable that fares should be controlled and that the taxi trade should be unable to respond to an increase in costs by increasing its prices. At first sight, I was sympathetic to this argument. That was before I made further inquiries.
Soon after we first took over this responsibility from the Home Office, my officials came to me saying that it was time to increase London taxi fares. I must admit that my first reaction was one of amazement that the prices in this industry are controlled by central Government. What was so unique about the London taxi trade that it alone in the entire economy should be controlled in this way? Why cannot each taxi driver decide on the price at which to sell his services?
I was then presented with the following argument: first, to protect the consumer, all taxis must charge the same fare; secondly, the fare must be set by some authority; and, thirdly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport had drawn the short straw. We have aceepted


this—so far—but I would state unequivocally that, if there were true competition between taxi drivers charging different fares, I would have no objection whatsoever to them taking this levy into account when deciding what fare to charge from Heathrow.
That is not the present situation. As I have said, we control taxi fares to protect the consumer. Let us examine the effect that the present tariff has on services at Heathrow. Apparently, hundreds of taxi drivers are willing to queue for several hours for a hiring from the airport. Why? Not all passengers are American tourists or Arab sheikhs, from whom the driver might expect a handsome tip.
The reason is that the fare tariff makes hirings at Heathrow particularly lucrative. That is because the meter rate is increased by 50 per cent. when the journey passes the six-mile mark. That was not an unreasonable provision for the normal taxi driver compelled, say, to take somebody to Bromley or Enfield, from where he was unlikely to get a return fare. Often it is the case that a taxi picks someone up in the middle of London or at a station, takes her or him to whatever the destination may be and there is no fare back. To compensate for that, there was put into the system this 50 per cent. increase.
The increased earnings on the outward journey cover the cost of returning some way towards the central area, where the driver might reasonably expect to get another hire. But this same surcharge applies to hirings at Heathrow airport, most of which leave the cab in the middle of central London, where the driver can immediately be in the best possible position to pick up another hiring. I can see little justification for a tariff structure which inflates the average taxi fare from Heathrow by as much as £3.
To be frank, all the evidence is that Heathrow is highly profitable to the taxi trade. The levy that we are now debating will make a slight impact on its profits, but, so far as I can see, there will still be plenty. I told my hon. Friend when he visited me, together with representatives of one of the London taxi associations, that if this levy gives rise in the longer term to an undersupply of taxis at Heathrow, I shall be willing to reconsider the case for a surcharge on the fare, and I stand by that undertaking.
But tonight I go further. If, in spite of the 50p surcharge, there is still an apparent oversupply of taxis at Heathrow, there would be a strong case for a review of the tariff structure with a view to reducing the excess profitability of providing these services in the circumstances I have described. It does not benefit Heathrow or the passengers who pass through the airport for there to be hundreds of cabs stacked in a feeder park in the central area. It certainly does not improve the availability of taxis in the centre of London.
This matter demonstrates vividly the anomalies that can arise when market forces are suspended in favour of central determination. It is certainly not the wish of this Administration to be in a position of controlling London taxi fares—but while we have this responsibility it is our duty to exercise it in the best interests of the passengers. I therefore thank my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to an anomaly which has previously gone unnoticed in the detailed and complex exercise of determining taxi fares.
I know that my hon. Friend, besides supporting the London taxi trade, is concerned for the welfare of taxi passengers. He will therefore be relieved to know that the dispute is not causing too much inconvenience to those who would normally have chosen to travel by taxi. While I am sure he shares my regret that there should be any inconvenience at all, the majority of such passengers have transferred to other forms of public transport.
Heathrow has particularly good public transport links which include the underground, the airbus, run by LRT, and a minibus service called Airliner, which provides a covenient door-to-door service to and from the airport. In addition, those with heavy luggage or going to destinations that are difficult to reach may telephone for a hire car or taxi to pick them up at the airport.
One often finds when considering a particular case that it is grounded in more general and fundamental issues. As I said in my opening remarks, this apparently detailed matter has caused us to consider two such issues—first, whether costs should be borne as a general tax or should fall on those who benefit, and secondly whether the fare tariff for London taxis should be reviewed in relation to Heathrow.
For the reasons that I have given, our view on the first of those is that such identifiable costs should be borne by those who benefit, not by all airport users. On the second, we are not persuaded of the immediate need to pass this levy on to the passengers, but we shall review the situation with a view to securing an appropriate level of supply of taxis at Heathrow up or down depending upon how the matter develops.
My hon. Friend expressed his anxiety and that of the trade, which he has expressed to me before, about what would happen in the event of the privatisation of Heathrow. The fair trading and competition laws would come into operation. That applies not just in the future but at present. My hon. Friend might like to consider that that might be a more effective way of taking the matter forward than the boycott which is currently losing members of the taxi trade a useful income during the pre-Christmas period.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty five minutes past Twelve o'clock.